This patch adds device tree nodes for NOR and NAND flashes and places
board-control node inside the localbus.
defconfig and board file updated appropriately.
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8610_hpcd.dts | 39 +++-
arch/powerpc/confi
Paul,
Now that 2.6.26-rc1 is out, will your powerpc-next branch be used for
work queued up for 2.6.27?
- k
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Sam,
We have a case in powerpc in which we want to link some library
routines with all module objects. The routines are intended for
handling out-of-line function call register save/restore so having
them as EXPORT_SYMBOL() is counter productive (we do also need to link
the same "library
This patch adds device tree nodes for NOR and NAND flashes and places
board-control node inside the localbus.
defconfig and board file updated appropriately.
Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
Heh, this is v2. The flash setup on the MPC8610 tricked me.
There is single NAND p
On Sun, May 04, 2008 at 01:22:38PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Sam,
>
> We have a case in powerpc in which we want to link some library
> routines with all module objects. The routines are intended for
> handling out-of-line function call register save/restore so having
> them as EXPORT_SYMB
On Thu, 2008-05-01 at 22:48 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> Look at arch/powerpc/kernel/cputable.c to see how we handle issues
> like this.
>
Oh and classic pitfall: If you define a new feature bit, make sure
CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE is updated to contain it in cputable.h
Also, It may not be totally c
> Oh and classic pitfall: If you define a new feature bit, make sure
> CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE is updated to contain it in cputable.h
Yeah, all that stuff I could figure out as needed. What I really meant
was, where is the big official table of which chips behave which ways that
you base all code that
H. Peter Anvin writes:
> Why is having them as an EXPORT_SYMBOL() counterproductive? It sounds
> like *exactly* what you need -- and then having the kernel provide the
> same code to modules, instead of replication...?
It means we would go through a trampoline just to call little things
like _
Kumar Gala wrote:
Sam,
We have a case in powerpc in which we want to link some library routines
with all module objects. The routines are intended for handling
out-of-line function call register save/restore so having them as
EXPORT_SYMBOL() is counter productive (we do also need to link the
This is a bit OT, but I got the warning in the subject from
checkpatch.pl for a piece of code. The code *is* using a mutex. Does it
actually mean I shouldn't use a mutex?
The code declares a global mutex:
static DECLARE_MUTEX(list_lock);
The odds of two accesses to the list_lock at the s
On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 16:12 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Oh and classic pitfall: If you define a new feature bit, make sure
> > CPU_FTRS_POSSIBLE is updated to contain it in cputable.h
>
> Yeah, all that stuff I could figure out as needed. What I really meant
> was, where is the big official
On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 20:41 -0400, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> This is a bit OT, but I got the warning in the subject from
> checkpatch.pl for a piece of code. The code *is* using a mutex. Does it
> actually mean I shouldn't use a mutex?
>
> The code declares a global mutex:
>
> static DECLARE_
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 03:48:05PM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> Add board support for the Phytec pcm030 mpc5200b based board. It
> does not need any platform specific fixups and as such is handled
> as a mpc5200 simple platform.
Those still whingeing about how horrible and hard and tedious the new
On Mon, 05 May 2008 11:06:55 +1000
"Michael Ellerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 20:41 -0400, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> > This is a bit OT, but I got the warning in the subject from
> > checkpatch.pl for a piece of code. The code *is* using a mutex.
> > Does it actually mean
Sean MacLennan writes:
> This is a bit OT, but I got the warning in the subject from
> checkpatch.pl for a piece of code. The code *is* using a mutex. Does it
> actually mean I shouldn't use a mutex?
I don't require zero checkpatch warnings or errors on patches before I
accept them. If what chec
On Sun, 2008-05-04 at 20:41 -0400, Sean MacLennan wrote:
> This is a bit OT, but I got the warning in the subject from
> checkpatch.pl for a piece of code. The code *is* using a mutex. Does it
> actually mean I shouldn't use a mutex?
>
> The code declares a global mutex:
>
> static DECLARE
Jochen Friedrich writes:
> -#ifdef CONFIG_OF_I2C
> +#if defined(CONFIG_OF_I2C) || defined(CONFIG_OF_I2C_MODULE)
>
> void of_register_i2c_devices(struct i2c_adapter *adap,
>struct device_node *adap_node);
Why do we have that ifdef there at all? There's only that one
On Mon, 05 May 2008 13:38:39 +1000
"Benjamin Herrenschmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Show us the code... It could be a bug in checkpatch or you using
> the wrong functions somewhere ...
The change to DEFINE_MUTEX and changing up/down to
mutex_lock/mutex_unlock solved the problem.
The code i
Changes the cputable so that various CPU families that have an exclusive
CONFIG_ option have a more sensible default entry to patch if the specific
processor hasn't been identified.
This makes the kernel more generally useful when booted on an unknown
PVR for things like new 4xx variants.
Signed-
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 13:34 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 13:34 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 13:34 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Paul Mackerras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 12:13:43PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Sean MacLennan writes:
>
> > This is a bit OT, but I got the warning in the subject from
> > checkpatch.pl for a piece of code. The code *is* using a mutex. Does it
> > actually mean I shouldn't use a mutex?
>
> I don't require zer
23 matches
Mail list logo
