On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 10:00 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> plain text document attachment
> (0002-powerpc-ftrace-use-create_branch-lib-function.patch)
> From: Steven Rostedt
>
> Impact: clean up, remove duplicate code
>
> When ftrace was first ported to PowerPC, there existed a
> create_function
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 14:45 -0600, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> When identify_cpu() is called a second time with a logical PVR, it only
> copies a subset of the cpu_spec structure to avoid overwriting the
> performance monitor fields that were initialized based on the real PVR.
>
> If the real PVR is no
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> >
> > /* if (link) set op to 'bl' else 'b' */
> > - op = 0x4800 | (link ? 1 : 0);
> > - op |= (ftrace_calc_offset(ip, addr) & 0x03fc);
> > + op = create_branch((unsigned int *)ip, addr, link ? 1 : 0);
>
> If I was feeling nit-pic
Hi All,
I've been rather busy lately and have unfortunately gotten behind on
updating the 4xx tree. I spent some time this weekend looking over
the patches queued up, and fortunately there were not too many. I'm
doing some build testing of these 4 today:
commit 6c7120902305b3a21460cd2f0f917a393
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 10:26:12PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>
> > This patch gives arches more freedom on overwriting CFLAGS, specifically
> > on PowerPC we want to remove -fno-omit-frame-pointer flag.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov
> > ---
> > Makefile |
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:51:34PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 22:26 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > +include $(srctree)/arch/$(SRCARCH)/Makefile
> > > +
> > > # arch Makefile may override CC so keep this after arch Makefile is
> > included
> > > NOSTDINC_FLAGS +=
* Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 10:26:12PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Anton Vorontsov wrote:
> >
> > > This patch gives arches more freedom on overwriting CFLAGS, specifically
> > > on PowerPC we want to remove -fno-omit-frame-pointer flag.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by:
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 23:03 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> So the question is: even with FRAME_POINTERS disabled on PPC, is
> __builtin_return_address(1)/(2) reliable, and is save_stack_trace() fast?
> (i.e.
> can it walk down the stack frame efficiently, or does it have to scan the full
> kernel
Hi,
I'm programming a board with an MPC8555E on which an external chip can
raise low priority interrupts through the port C of the CPM2. Under
nominal conditions it generates few interrupts, but they take a
relatively long time to be processed.
I also use some CPM2 controllers in such a way that
