On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 13:44 +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:47:35 Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-11-06 at 09:25:29 UTC, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > opal_init() is called via a machine_subsys_initcall(). Due to a hack
> > > in the eeh code the eeh driver is initiali
On Fri, 12 Jun 2015 19:47:35 Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-11-06 at 09:25:29 UTC, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > opal_init() is called via a machine_subsys_initcall(). Due to a hack
> > in the eeh code the eeh driver is initialised with at the same
> > initcall level. This means depending on l
On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 19:25 +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> opal_init() is called via a machine_subsys_initcall(). Due to a hack
> in the eeh code the eeh driver is initialised with at the same
> initcall level. This means depending on link ordering the following
> error can occur because the opal
On Thu, 2015-11-06 at 09:25:29 UTC, Alistair Popple wrote:
> opal_init() is called via a machine_subsys_initcall(). Due to a hack
> in the eeh code the eeh driver is initialised with at the same
> initcall level. This means depending on link ordering the following
> error can occur because the opal
opal_init() is called via a machine_subsys_initcall(). Due to a hack
in the eeh code the eeh driver is initialised with at the same
initcall level. This means depending on link ordering the following
error can occur because the opal irchip has not been initialised:
irq: XICS didn't like hwirq-0x9
