No; use an alias in the aliases node. That is what aliases is
designed
for. Something like 'index' is a reinvention of the wheel.
Do aliases work in reverse? That is, if I have a pointer to a device
node, can
I look up its alias directly? Or do I have to scan the aliases node
and do a
com
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:22:00 +0200
"Stefan Roese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So what should we do now? Currently I2C doesn't work at all on 4xx
> since the driver expects the "index" property and no dts sets this
> property. Personally I would like to move to using cell-index here,
> since this s
On 5/7/08, Sascha Hauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 11:53:49AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 12:27 +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > memcpy_from/to_io() use word aligned accesses on the io side of memory.
> > > The MPC5200 local plus bus where ou
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 15:22:24 +1000
Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 06:58:30PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
> >
> > + /* get random IV */
> > + get_random_bytes(req->giv, crypto_aead_ivsize(authenc));
>
> Sorry but this is unworkable given our current RNG infrastru
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 10:45:42AM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Thursday 05 June 2008, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > Maybe it is time to remove the index, or maybe we should go back to
> > > > using both a static and the index. But at the time we decided to
> > > > enforce an index.
> > >
> > > So
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 02:43:59AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
I'm puzzled. Could someone point me to some real code where cell-
index
is used as a pointer into some global data. Sorry for my ignorance.
>>>
>>> http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-June/057254.html
>>
>>
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 13:14:00 -0600
"Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No; use an alias in the aliases node. That is what aliases is
> designed for. Something like 'index' is a reinvention of the wheel.
If we really want to get rid of the index, I like the alias method. I
mainly write dr
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 04:44:15PM -0500, Kim Phillips wrote:
>
> it is :). I'm working on it :).
Good :)
> the h/w has a IV out feature we should probably be using. How about
> something like this (UNTESTED):
Looks great!
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert
Hi All
With these rather fresh sources, obtained via git:
53c8ba9 Linux 2.6.26-rc5
and after just about an hour of mild tests on 2 powerpc laptops: an
older TiBookIV, a newer Powerbook5,8.
CD-Burning seems to work again: at least on the Powerbook5,8 - with a
real image burn. A simulated CD bu
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 11:40:37AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > 2) for i2c purposes, explicit enumeration is not needed or desired.
> > All the necessary data is already present in the device tree in that
> > i2c device nodes are children of i2c bus nodes. The i2c bus numb
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 08:43:51AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 4:05 AM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
[snip]
>> +timebase-frequency = <0>; // from U-Boot
>> +bus-frequency = <0>;// from U-Boot
>> +clock-frequency
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > No; use an alias in the aliases node. That is what aliases is designed
> > for. Something like 'index' is a reinvention of the wheel.
>
> Do aliases work in reverse? That is, if I have a pointer to a
> devi
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 17:37:16 -0400
Sean MacLennan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 08:22:00 +0200
> "Stefan Roese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So what should we do now? Currently I2C doesn't work at all on 4xx
> > since the driver expects the "index" property and no dts sets th
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 10:50:20 -0500
Timur Tabi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> > Hi Timur,
> >
> >> In situations where it doesn't matter which I2C bus is #1 and which one is
> >> #2,
> >> then I think the code should just initialize idx based on the order the
> >> nodes
>
On Jun 5, 2008, at 3:39 PM, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
===
--- /dev/null
+++ linux-2.6-galak/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/tqm8548.dts
+memory {
+device_type = "memory";
+reg = <0x 0x200
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 06:52:25AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 10:45:42 +0200
> Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 05 June 2008, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > > > > Maybe it is time to remove the index, or maybe we should go back to
> > > > > using both a static
On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 09:19:42PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:43:51 -0500
> Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 10:24:15AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> > > Stefan Roese wrote:
> > > > I'm wondering what is currently recommended in the I2C device
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:28:18 +0200
"Stefan Roese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> n Thursday 05 June 2008, Valentine Barshak wrote:
> > The "ndfc-chip" device doesn't need any resources. All resources
> > are handled by the "ndfc-nand" device. Registering the same memory
> > resource twice causes "cat
From a device tree perspective, index and cell-index are both
incorrect. The IIC macros don't share register blocks with anything,
are enumerated as unique instances per macro in the device tree, and
should be able to be distinguished by "regs" and/or unit address.
Does anyone disagree with tha
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 04:40:20AM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
From a device tree perspective, index and cell-index are both
>>> incorrect. The IIC macros don't share register blocks with anything,
>>> are enumerated as unique instances per macro in the device tree, and
>>> should be abl
On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 07:10:22PM +0200, Wolfgang Grandegger wrote:
> Like for the TQM5200, the vendor prefix "tqc," is now used for all
> TQM85xx modules from TQ-Components GmbH (http://www.tqc.de) in the
> corresponding DTS files.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wolfgang Grandegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 16:22 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> This patch add a check to the PPC4xx PCIe driver to detect if the port
> is disabled via the device-tree. This is needed for the AMCC Canyonlands
> board which has an option to either select 2 PCIe ports or 1 PCIe port
> and one SATA port. Th
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:41 PM, David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 09:19:42PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 10:43:51 -0500
>> Scott Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 10:24:15AM -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
>> > > Stefan Roese
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 21:19 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> So if possible, I'd like to eliminate the *index stuff all together
> from the 4xx driver. The private data structure contains an idx
> parameter, but this can be populated based on probe order or something.
>
> >From a device tree perspectiv
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 09:48 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> As far as I am concerned, it's really up to the maintainers and users
> of this platform. All I am asking for is that you do not call
> i2c_add_numbered_adapter() on an adapter with an automatically
> generated number. This function must only
On Wed, 2008-06-04 at 10:43 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> > I just posted a patch for the FSL I2C driver to check for cell-index. I'm
> > under
> > the impression that cell-index is the standard for enumerating devices in
> > the
> > device tree.
>
> No, it's the standard for correlating devices w
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:13 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > From a device tree perspective, index and cell-index are both
> > incorrect. The IIC macros don't share register blocks with anything,
> > are enumerated as unique instances per macro in the device tree, and
> > should
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:43 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > if you need explicit indexing then use an alias. My opinion however
> > is that explicit indexing is unnecessary and is just an artifact of
> > current i2c subsystem internals. There is already enough information
>
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 10:45 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> Full ack from me. So I suggest to use "cell-index" if available and
> otherwise
> use an incremented number, same as the FSL i2c driver does now:
>
> http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2008-June/057254.html
>
> If nobody objects I'll
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 22:07:31 -0600
"Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fallback is to just let the i2c layer auto-assign an ID. The only
> reason I can think of to want to assign a specific id to an i2c bus is
> so that a userspace application can reference a specific bus. The
> drive
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 22:12 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 05 June 2008, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
> > > "Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paulus, Can we just kill all of arch/ppc for .27 right now?
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Josh Boyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Acked-b
> I've been bisecting that on Quad G5 (sata_svw): irq 18: nobody cared ...,
> then later endless ata1.00: exception..., blah blah, ata1: EH complete.
> It comes down to:
Thanks for finding that !
/me likes when he wakes up in the morning to find a G5 bug ... and the
fix in the same thread :-)
C
On Jun 5, 2008, at 11:32 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 22:12 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 05 June 2008, Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
"Grant Likely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paulus, Can we just kill all of arch/ppc for .27 right now?
Acked-by: Josh Boy
Might be a platform thing, might be an ATA thing:
irq 18: nobody cared (try booting with the "irqpoll" option)
Call Trace:
[c06cf770] [c00120dc] .show_stack+0x58/0x1dc (unreliable)
[c06cf820] [c00a2d64] .__report_bad_irq+0x3c/0xac
[c06cf8a0] [c00a
On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 11:23 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Jun 5, 2008, at 10:56 AM, Jerone Young wrote:
>
> > Update: Consolidated dbcr1 & dbcr2 under one define.
> >
> > Taken from the PowerPC ISA BookIII-E specifies that DBCR0 is different
> > for all others that are not ppc405 chips. So I have
Hi Ben,
On Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:16:23 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-06-05 at 09:48 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > As far as I am concerned, it's really up to the maintainers and users
> > of this platform. All I am asking for is that you do not call
> > i2c_add_numbered_adapte
101 - 136 of 136 matches
Mail list logo
