On Sep 17, 2010, at 10:14 PM, "Benjamin Herrenschmidt"
wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 20:20 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
>> I don't see any reason to limit it to GPL drivers. Not only that, but
>> then we'll have this:
>
> I do
Can you elaborate on that, or are you just going to pull rank on me?
On Sep 18, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2010, at 10:14 PM, "Benjamin Herrenschmidt"
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 20:20 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
>>> I don't see any reason to limit it to GPL drivers. Not only that, but
>>> then we'll have this:
>>
>> I do
>
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I don't think either of these should be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. Why shouldn't a
> binary module be allowed to know these frequencies? My view is why preclude
> anyone from using this how they want. If they want to live in the gray area
> so be
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Sep 18, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
>
>> On Sep 17, 2010, at 10:14 PM, "Benjamin Herrenschmidt"
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 20:20 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
I don't see any reason to limit it to GPL drivers.
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>> It is not, in my opinion, about what is technically possible and what
>> isn't. The kernel is licensed under the GPL. This is a Linux kernel
>> only symbol. One would be hard pressed to claim they have a driver
>>
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>> This is a new symbol being exported, not
>> one that has been exported for years.
>
> Except that Ben says that I should change ppc_proc_freq from EXPORT_SYMBOL
> to
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL as well. In a sense, we're in
On Sep 18, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 17, 2010, at 10:14 PM, "Benjamin Herrenschmidt"
>>> wrote:
>>>
On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 20:20 -0500, Timur Tabi w
Dear tma...@apm.com,
In message <1284774145-14543-1-git-send-email-tma...@apm.com> you wrote:
>
> This patch generalizes the existing drver/dma/ppc4xx/adma.c, so that
> common code can be shared between different similar DMA engine
> drivers in other SoCs.
...
> * This driver supports the async
Dear tma...@apm.com,
In message <1284774162-14652-1-git-send-email-tma...@apm.com> you wrote:
> From: Tirumala Marri
>
> This patch combines drivers/dma/ppc4xx/xor.h and driver/dma/dma/ppc4xx/dma.h
> into drivers/dma/ppc4xx/ppx440spe-dma.h .
>
> Signed-off-by: Tirumala R Marri
> ---
> drivers
Josh Boyer wrote:
> It is not, in my opinion, about what is technically possible and what
> isn't. The kernel is licensed under the GPL. This is a Linux kernel
> only symbol. One would be hard pressed to claim they have a driver
> that wasn't written for Linux that happens to need that symbol.
Josh Boyer wrote:
> This is a new symbol being exported, not
> one that has been exported for years.
Except that Ben says that I should change ppc_proc_freq from EXPORT_SYMBOL to
EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL as well. In a sense, we're in a catch-22. We have three
choices:
1. We *arbitrarily* change ppc_
Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 09:58:41 +0800
> "tiejun.chen" wrote:
>
>> Scott Wood wrote:
>>> The guest OS *is* the same as native Linux, as far as TLB handling is
>>> concerned.
>> Looks you means the TLB exception handler should be same between the native
>> and
>> the guest OS. Rig
On Sat, 2010-09-18 at 10:34 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2010, at 9:36 AM, Tabi Timur-B04825 wrote:
>
> > On Sep 17, 2010, at 10:14 PM, "Benjamin Herrenschmidt"
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 20:20 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> >>> I don't see any reason to limit it to GPL driv
13 matches
Mail list logo