On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 06:16:33PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:06:34AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>
> > I'm okay with that. How about fsl/mpc5200-of-machine.c for now?
> > (only the mpc5200 i2s driver uses it at the moment). It can always be
> > renamed if other folks w
Hello,
I am trying to port everything (u-boot-nand.bin, uImage(kernel), jffs2
and dtb) on NAND of MPC8313ERDB board ...
I loaded u-boot-nand.bin to boot the board from NAND and it is
successful ... but the problem is in loading kernel ... the kernel
version and location is detected properly and i
Hello Milton and David, thanks t=for the answers.
This is a very reasonable approach, and is quite similar to what
I do.
Makes me feel better !!!
You actually have a few choices. You can put just the loaded
data, or you can put the elf file and parse the header in your
boot loader.
I cannot
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:18:18PM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote:
>> Basically what I did then in my patch then, refactor leds-gpio so most of
>> it is shared and there is a block of code that does platform binding and
>> another block that does of_platform
On Thursday 26 June 2008, Vitaly Bordug wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:21:23 +0200
> Laurent Pinchart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > There should be no dependencies. When the OF GPIO support is not
> > > selected linux/of_gpio.h will define of_get_gpio() as a stub, so the
> > > fs_enet driver
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 05:31:53PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 06:36:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > /sys/bus/platform/devices/soc-audio/codec_reg
> Yikes. The AIC26 has registers all over the place and most of them are
> empty. The codec_reg attribute handling means
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 02:20:42AM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 01:18:18PM -0700, Trent Piepho wrote:
> >> Basically what I did then in my patch then, refactor leds-gpio so most of
> >> it is shared and there is a block of code
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 01:17:20AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> Okay, I've changed my mind. :-) I'll back off a bit from this extreme and
> call it:
> sound/soc/fsl/soc-of-simple.c
> Does that sound okay? If non-freescale chips decide to use it then it
> can be moved out of the freescale dire
* Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-07-18 06:14:31]:
>
> > All these operations are done assuming that tlb_gather_mmu disables
> > preemption and tlb_finish_mmu enables preemption again.
> > This is not true for -rt.
> > For x86, none of the code paths between tlb_gather_mmu and
>
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:29:37AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 12:45:55PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 02:39:39AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > This configuration is also exposed via a sysfs file, including some of
> > the configurability. Exposin
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 04:27:49PM +0100, Matt Sealey wrote:
If you built this kernel yourself, you need to do it from a system with
an up-to-date binutils (2.18) otherwise, it does this.
Note to the linux-ppc guys; is there any changelog entry which reports
this requir
Commit 35b5f6b1a aka [PHYLIB: Locking fixes for PHY I/O potentially sleeping]
changed the phydev->lock from spinlock into a mutex. Now, the following
code path got triggered while NFS was unavailable:
|[ 21.287359] nfs: server 10.11.3.47 not responding, still trying
|[ 38.891373] nfs: server 1
Introduce a new dma attriblue DMA_ATTR_WEAK_ORDERING to use weak ordering
on DMA mappings in the Cell processor. Add the code to the Cell's IOMMU
implementation to use this code.
Dynamic mappings can be weakly or strongly ordered on an individual basis
but the fixed mapping has to be either comple
Since OLS is next week I figured I see who around here is going.
I'm always interested in putting faces to names and having a lively
discussions over beer.
So if your headed to OLS respond to this thread and maybe we'll have
an inform PPC BoF @ a pub.
- k
_
On Jul 18, 2008, at 4:26 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Thursday 26 June 2008, Vitaly Bordug wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:21:23 +0200
Laurent Pinchart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There should be no dependencies. When the OF GPIO support is not
selected linux/of_gpio.h will define of_get_gpio
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Since OLS is next week I figured I see who around here is going.
>
> I'm always interested in putting faces to names and having a lively
> discussions over beer.
>
> So if your headed to OLS respond to this thread and maybe we'll have an inform
> PPC BoF @
On Friday 18 July 2008, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > Since OLS is next week I figured I see who around here is going.
> >
> > I'm always interested in putting faces to names and having a lively
> > discussions over beer.
> >
> > So if your headed to OLS res
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 08:35 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Since OLS is next week I figured I see who around here is going.
>
> I'm always interested in putting faces to names and having a lively
> discussions over beer.
>
> So if your headed to OLS respond to this thread and maybe we'll have
> a
On Wednesday 16 July 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Victor Gallardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ppc4xx: Add AMCC Arches DTS
>
> Signed-off-by: Victor Gallardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/arches.dts | 522
> ++ 1 files changed, 522 inser
On Wednesday 16 July 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> From: Victor Gallardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> ppc4xx: Add AMCC Arches 460GT eval board support
>
> Signed-off-by: Victor Gallardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Please put a brief description of Arches in the patch description.
Best regards,
Stefan
_
On Friday 27 June 2008, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> Hi Laurent,
>
> > Is there any pending issue or can this be applied to powerpc-next ?
>
> Looks OK to me.
>
> >> Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Cc: Jochen Friedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Acked-by: Jochen Friedrich <[EMAI
On Jul 18, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 27 June 2008, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
Hi Laurent,
Is there any pending issue or can this be applied to powerpc-next ?
Looks OK to me.
Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Jochen Friedrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Grant Likely wrote:
Okay, I've changed my mind. :-) I'll back off a bit from this extreme and
call it:
sound/soc/fsl/soc-of-simple.c
That works for me.
And please don't forget to CC: me on any discussion involving sound/soc/fsl.
--
Timur Tabi
Linux Kernel Developer @ Freescale
___
On Friday 18 July 2008, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Jul 18, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>
> > On Friday 27 June 2008, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
> >> Hi Laurent,
> >>
> >>> Is there any pending issue or can this be applied to powerpc-next ?
> >>
> >> Looks OK to me.
> >>
> Signed-off
On Jul 18, 2008, at 9:22 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 08:35 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
Since OLS is next week I figured I see who around here is going.
I'm always interested in putting faces to names and having a lively
discussions over beer.
So if your headed to OLS respond to
On Jul 18, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 18 July 2008, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 9:38 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Friday 27 June 2008, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
Hi Laurent,
Is there any pending issue or can this be applied to powerpc-
next ?
Looks OK
On Jun 18, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
+#if defined(CONFIG_CPM2) || defined(CONFIG_8xx_GPIO)
+
+struct cpm2_ioports {
+ u32 dir, par, sor, odr, dat;
+ u32 res[3];
+};
+
is this really common for both CPM2 and 8xx? if so why the name?
- k
__
Hi Kumar,
> On Jun 18, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
>
>> +#if defined(CONFIG_CPM2) || defined(CONFIG_8xx_GPIO)
>> +
>> +struct cpm2_ioports {
>> +u32 dir, par, sor, odr, dat;
>> +u32 res[3];
>> +};
>> +
>
> is this really common for both CPM2 and 8xx? if so why the name?
On Jul 18, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Jochen Friedrich wrote:
Hi Kumar,
On Jun 18, 2008, at 12:08 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
+#if defined(CONFIG_CPM2) || defined(CONFIG_8xx_GPIO)
+
+struct cpm2_ioports {
+ u32 dir, par, sor, odr, dat;
+ u32 res[3];
+};
+
is this really common for bot
Hi Kumar,
> but ports a-d are different on cpm1? I guess I'd like to see both
> patches to understand the commonality and differences.
Yes. Both patches are still in patchwork:
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=19045
http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=19386
Thanks,
Joc
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 10:58:25AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> Sparse (or sparsely used) register maps are pretty common - in practice
> it's not been a problem to just have a cache that covers everything and
> only gets read, the amount of data involved is rarely that large in the
> context of what
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Since OLS is next week I figured I see who around here is going.
>From DENX: Stefan Roese and me.
> I'm always interested in putting faces to names and having a lively
> discussions over beer.
Hear! Hear! That was an invitation, wasn't it ?
> So if
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 04:20:21PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> On Friday 18 July 2008, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2008, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > > Since OLS is next week I figured I see who around here is going.
> > >
> > > I'm always interested in putting faces to names and having
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 08:35:36AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Since OLS is next week I figured I see who around here is going.
>
> I'm always interested in putting faces to names and having a lively
> discussions over beer.
>
> So if your headed to OLS respond to this thread and maybe we'll have
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> If anybody wants to email me their cell phone # privately then I'll
> collect a list and send it out to all the repliers to this thread.
> That way you don't need to post your cell # to the mailing list for the
> world to see.
BTW: will there a pre-OLS
On Jul 18, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Mohan Kumar M wrote:
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 00:10 +0530, Mohan Kumar M wrote:
Extract list of relocation offsets
Please, provide an indication of what changed since the previous
version of the patch to make the reviewer's life easier
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 08:35:36AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Since OLS is next week I figured I see who around here is going.
>
> I'm always interested in putting faces to names and having a lively
> discussions over beer.
>
> So if your headed to OLS respond to this thread and maybe we'll have a
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Jul 18, 2008, at 4:26 AM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Thursday 26 June 2008, Vitaly Bordug wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:21:23 +0200
Laurent Pinchart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There should be no dependencies. When the OF GPIO support is not
selected linux/of_gpio.h will
On Jul 17, 2008, at 10:47 PM, David Gibson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 11:14:11AM -0500, Milton Miller wrote:
On Thu Jul 17 at 23:22:28 EST in 2008, Guillaume Dargaud wrote:
[snip]
[more snip]
We call this the flattened device tree.
Your firmware doesn't have to deal with this though,
This patch changes all LOAD_REG_ADDR macro calls to LOAD_REG_IMMEDIATE
to make sure that we load the correct address.
Did you figure out _why_ LOAD_REG_ADDR doesn't work? Using
LOAD_REG_IMMEDIATE is actually a step back, it makes the kernel
binary non-PIC. And LOAD_REG_ADDR _should_ work just
John Reiser wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:19:32 -0500
> > Nathan Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> [snip]
> >> A new aux vector entry, AT_BASE_PLATFORM, will denote the actual hardware.
> [snip]
>
> > OK.
> >
> > But it conflicts directly with the already-
On Fri Jul 18 18:43:11 EST 2008, Guillaume Dargaud wrote:
Hello Milton and David, thanks for the answers.
This is a very reasonable approach, and is quite similar to what
I do.
Makes me feel better !!!
You actually have a few choices. You can put just the loaded
data, or you can put the elf
Hi,
while trying to cleanup some configs/makefiles for ppc64 I noticed, that
CONFIG_POWER4 implies CONFIG_PPC64 and vice versa in all defconfigs.
So I want to boldly replace CONFIG_POWER4 by CONFIG_PPC64 - ugh.
However, there are some constructs like:
#ifndef CONFIG_PPC64
...
#ifdef CONFIG_POW
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:35:36 -0500
"Kumar Gala" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since OLS is next week I figured I see who around here is going.
>
> I'm always interested in putting faces to names and having a lively
> discussions over beer.
>
> So if your headed to OLS respond to this thread and
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 18:33:38 +0200
"Wolfgang Denk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW: will there a pre-OLS beer evening on Tuesday, or will Stefan and
> me have to sit alone in some bar?
I'm up for a pre-OLS beer evening!
Cheers,
Sean
___
Linuxppc-de
Kumar Gala wrote:
> So if your headed to OLS respond to this thread and maybe we'll have
> an inform PPC BoF @ a pub.
I will go.
-Geoff
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
I too live in Ottawa and would be interested in sharing a beer with an a
PPC developers. If you have a rough idea of numbers, maybe I can help
in recommend a place for the gathering.
Nick
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https:/
Nathan Lynch wrote:
> +#define AT_EXECFN 31/* filename of program */
>
> How did you arrive at 31 for the value of AT_EXECFN? I haven't been
> able to find out how AT_* values are "allocated", or what the reason
> is for the gap between AT_SECURE and AT_SYSINFO.
The numbers are chosen
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:31:29 -0700
John Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Elsewhere, I've staked out use of a new AT_WINE_PRELOAD_INFO
> at 30. Avoid that one, please. :-)
The reliable way in which to reserve these numbers is to patch the
header file.
__
On Jul 18, 2008, at 11:33 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
If anybody wants to email me their cell phone # privately then I'll
collect a list and send it out to all the repliers to this thread.
That way you don't need to post your cell # to the mailing list f
On Friday 18 July 2008, Marvin wrote:
> in which POWER4 is always undefined, e.g. in
> include/asm-powerpc/mmu_context.h. Maybe this is a leftover from times, where
> 64-bit kernels where not supported on Powermacs. Is this 32-bit support still
> necessary?
There is currently no 64-bit machine
On Friday 18 July 2008, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Since OLS is next week I figured I see who around here is going.
>
> I'm always interested in putting faces to names and having a lively
> discussions over beer.
>
> So if your headed to OLS respond to this thread and maybe we'll have
> an inform PP
> With the original patch, the pending batch does get flushed
> in a non-preemptable region.
> I am resending the original with just adding the necesary comments.
Your comment isn't what I meant. What I meant is that if the process
is context switched while walking the page tables, the low leve
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 08:35 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> Since OLS is next week I figured I see who around here is going.
>
> I'm always interested in putting faces to names and having a lively
> discussions over beer.
>
> So if your headed to OLS respond to this thread and maybe we'll have
> a
On Fri, 2008-07-18 at 20:43 +0200, Marvin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> while trying to cleanup some configs/makefiles for ppc64 I noticed, that
> CONFIG_POWER4 implies CONFIG_PPC64 and vice versa in all defconfigs.
> So I want to boldly replace CONFIG_POWER4 by CONFIG_PPC64 - ugh.
No, those are different.
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > With the original patch, the pending batch does get flushed
> > in a non-preemptable region.
> > I am resending the original with just adding the necesary comments.
>
> Your comment isn't what I meant. What I meant is that if the process
> i
> There's lots of semantics that are changed with -rt that should make
> everything still work ;-) Some spinlocks remain real spinlocks, but we
> shouldn't have a problem with most being mutexes.
>
> There's some cases that uses per CPU variables or other per cpu actions
> that require a special
Hello,
I am trying to port everything (u-boot-nand.bin, uImage(kernel), jffs2
and dtb) on NAND of MPC8313ERDB board ...
I loaded u-boot-nand.bin to boot the board from NAND and it is
successful ... but the problem is in loading kernel ... the kernel
version and location is detected properly and i
58 matches
Mail list logo
