Am 30.04.20 um 22:38 schrieb ira.we...@intel.com:
From: Ira Weiny
kmap_atomic_prot() is now exported by all architectures. Use this
function rather than open coding a driver specific kmap_atomic.
Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny
Ah, yes looking into this once more this was on my TODO list for quit
Add support for imx8qm.
Shengjiu Wang (3):
ASoC: fsl_esai: introduce SoC specific data
ASoC: fsl_esai: Add support for imx8qm
ASoC: fsl_esai: Add new compatible string for imx8qm
.../devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl,esai.txt| 1 +
sound/soc/fsl/fsl_esai.c | 65 ++
Add new compatible string "fsl,imx8qm-esai" in the binding document.
Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang
---
Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl,esai.txt | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/sound/fsl,esai.txt
b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings
The difference for esai on imx8qm is that DMA device is EDMA.
EDMA requires the period size to be multiple of maxburst. Otherwise
the remaining bytes are not transferred and thus noise is produced.
We can handle this issue by adding a constraint on
SNDRV_PCM_HW_PARAM_PERIOD_SIZE to be multiple of
Introduce a SoC specific data structure which contains the
differences between the different SoCs.
This makes it easier to support more differences without having
to introduce a new if/else each time.
Signed-off-by: Shengjiu Wang
---
sound/soc/fsl/fsl_esai.c | 46
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 01:38:36PM -0700, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny
>
> Replace the use of BUG_ON(in_interrupt()) in the kmap() and kunmap()
> in favor of might_sleep().
>
> Besides the benefits of might_sleep(), this normalizes the
> implementations such that they can be made
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 01:38:37PM -0700, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> @@ -88,6 +88,11 @@ void __init kmap_init(void)
> {
> unsigned long kmap_vstart;
>
> + /* Check if this memory layout is broken because PKMAP overlaps
> + * page table.
> + */
> + BUILD_BUG_ON(PKMAP_BAS
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 01:38:39PM -0700, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny
>
> All architectures do exactly the same thing for kunmap(); remove all the
> duplicate definitions and lift the call to the core.
>
> This also has the benefit of changing kmap_unmap() on a number of
> archi
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 01:38:40PM -0700, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny
>
> Every arch has the same code to ensure atomic operations and a check for
> !HIGHMEM page.
>
> Remove the duplicate code by defining a core kmap_atomic() which only
> calls the arch specific kmap_atomic_hig
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 01:38:41PM -0700, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny
>
> Every single architecture (including !CONFIG_HIGHMEM) calls...
>
> pagefault_enable();
> preempt_enable();
>
> ... before returning from __kunmap_atomic(). Lift this code into the
> kunmap_at
> --- a/arch/sparc/mm/highmem.c
> +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/highmem.c
> @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> #include
>
> pgprot_t kmap_prot;
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmap_prot);
Btw, I don't see why sparc needs this as a variable, as there is just
a single assignment to it.
If sparc is sorted out we can always make it a
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 01:38:43PM -0700, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny
>
> To support kmap_atomic_prot() on all architectures each arch must
> support protections passed in to them.
>
> Change csky, mips, nds32 and xtensa to use their global kmap_prot value
> rather than a hard c
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 01:38:44PM -0700, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny
>
> To support kmap_atomic_prot(), all architectures need to support
> protections passed to their kmap_atomic_high() function. Pass
> protections into kmap_atomic_high() and change the name to
> kmap_atomic_h
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig
In addition to the work already it the series, it seems like
LAST_PKMAP_MASK, PKMAP_ADDR and PKMAP_NR can also be consolidated
to common code.
Also kmap_atomic_high_prot / kmap_atomic_pfn could move into common
code, maybe keyed off a symbol selected by the actual users that
need it. It also seem
On 01.05.20 00:24, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:43:39 +0200 David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Why does the firmware map support hotplug entries?
>>
>> I assume:
>>
>> The firmware memmap was added primarily for x86-64 kexec (and still, is
>> mostly used on x86-64 only IIRC). The
On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 04:12:05PM +0800, Shengjiu Wang wrote:
> The difference for esai on imx8qm is that DMA device is EDMA.
>
> EDMA requires the period size to be multiple of maxburst. Otherwise
> the remaining bytes are not transferred and thus noise is produced.
If this constraint comes fro
248e_defconfig
powerpc g5_defconfig
powerpc mpc512x_defconfig
m68k randconfig-a001-20200501
mips randconfig-a001-20200501
nds32randconfig-a001-20200501
alpharandconfig-a001-
To prevent verifying the kernel module appended signature twice
(finit_module), once by the module_sig_check() and again by IMA, powerpc
secure boot rules define an IMA architecture specific policy rule
only if CONFIG_MODULE_SIG_FORCE is not enabled. This, unfortunately, does
not take into account
On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 01:44:46AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > --- a/arch/sparc/mm/highmem.c
> > +++ b/arch/sparc/mm/highmem.c
> > @@ -33,6 +33,7 @@
> > #include
> >
> > pgprot_t kmap_prot;
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(kmap_prot);
>
> Btw, I don't see why sparc needs this as a variable, as ther
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:34 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 01.05.20 00:24, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:43:39 +0200 David Hildenbrand
> > wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >>> Why does the firmware map support hotplug entries?
> >>
> >> I assume:
> >>
> >> The firmware memmap was added p
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:46:07PM -0600, Jon Derrick wrote:
> Hi Bjorn & Kuppuswamy,
>
> I see a problem in the DPC ECN [1] to _OSC in that it doesn't give us a way to
> determine if firmware supports _OSC DPC negotation, and therefore how to
> handle
> DPC.
>
> Here is the wording of the ECN t
On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 01:54:56AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> In addition to the work already it the series, it seems like
> LAST_PKMAP_MASK, PKMAP_ADDR and PKMAP_NR can also be consolidated
> to common code.
Agreed, I mentioned in the cover letter there are similarities...
>
> Also kmap_
On 01.05.20 18:56, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:34 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>> On 01.05.20 00:24, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:43:39 +0200 David Hildenbrand
>>> wrote:
>>>
>
> Why does the firmware map support hotplug entries?
I assume
On Fri, 2020-05-01 at 12:16 -0500, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 12:46:07PM -0600, Jon Derrick wrote:
> > Hi Bjorn & Kuppuswamy,
> >
> > I see a problem in the DPC ECN [1] to _OSC in that it doesn't give us a way
> > to
> > determine if firmware supports _OSC DPC negotation, and
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:21 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 01.05.20 18:56, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:34 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01.05.20 00:24, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:43:39 +0200 David Hildenbrand
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >
On 01.05.20 19:39, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:21 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>> On 01.05.20 18:56, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:34 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 01.05.20 00:24, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 20:43:39 +0200 Dav
On 01.05.20 19:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 01.05.20 19:39, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:21 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01.05.20 18:56, Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:34 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 01.05.20 00:24, Andrew Morton
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:51 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 01.05.20 19:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 01.05.20 19:39, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:21 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 01.05.20 18:56, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:34 A
On 01.05.20 20:03, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:51 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>> On 01.05.20 19:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 01.05.20 19:39, Dan Williams wrote:
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:21 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 01.05.20 18:56, Dan Williams
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:14 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 01.05.20 20:03, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:51 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01.05.20 19:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> On 01.05.20 19:39, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:21 A
On 01.05.20 20:43, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:14 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>> On 01.05.20 20:03, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:51 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 01.05.20 19:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 01.05.20 19:39, Dan Williams w
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 12:18 PM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 01.05.20 20:43, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:14 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>
> >> On 01.05.20 20:03, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:51 AM David Hildenbrand
> >>> wrote:
>
> On
On Wed Apr 29, 2020 at 7:52 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Le 29/04/2020 à 04:05, Christopher M. Riedl a écrit :
> > Currently, code patching a STRICT_KERNEL_RWX exposes the temporary
> > mappings to other CPUs. These mappings should be kept local to the CPU
> > doing the patching. Use the
On Wed Apr 29, 2020 at 7:39 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Le 29/04/2020 à 04:05, Christopher M. Riedl a écrit :
> > x86 supports the notion of a temporary mm which restricts access to
> > temporary PTEs to a single CPU. A temporary mm is useful for situations
> > where a CPU needs to perf
On Wed Apr 29, 2020 at 7:48 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Le 29/04/2020 à 04:05, Christopher M. Riedl a écrit :
> > x86 supports the notion of a temporary mm which restricts access to
> > temporary PTEs to a single CPU. A temporary mm is useful for situations
> > where a CPU needs to perf
On 01.05.20 22:12, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 12:18 PM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>
>> On 01.05.20 20:43, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 11:14 AM David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 01.05.20 20:03, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:51 AM David
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 2:11 PM David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> On 01.05.20 22:12, Dan Williams wrote:
[..]
> >>> Consider the case of EFI Special Purpose (SP) Memory that is
> >>> marked EFI Conventional Memory with the SP attribute. In that case the
> >>> firmware memory map marked it as conventiona
On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 22:38:10 -0400 John Dorminy wrote:
> the change
> description refers to PROT_KERNEL, which is a symbol which does not
> appear to exist; perhaps PAGE_KERNEL was meant?
Yes, thanks, fixed.
Excerpts from Hugh Dickins's message of May 2, 2020 6:38 am:
> Hi Nick,
>
> I've been getting an "Unrecoverable exception 380" after a few hours
> of load on the G5 (yes, that G5!) with 5.7-rc: when interrupt_return
> checks lazy_irq_pending, it crashes at check_preemption_disabled+0x24
> with CON
From: Bin Meng
Drop CONFIG_MTD_M25P80 that was removed in
commit b35b9a10362d ("mtd: spi-nor: Move m25p80 code in spi-nor.c")
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng
---
arch/powerpc/configs/85xx-hw.config | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/configs/85xx-hw.config
b/arch/powerpc/
From: Bin Meng
Drop CONFIG_MTD_M25P80 that was removed in
commit b35b9a10362d ("mtd: spi-nor: Move m25p80 code in spi-nor.c")
Signed-off-by: Bin Meng
---
Changes in v2:
- correct the typo (5xx => 85xx) in the commit title
arch/powerpc/configs/85xx-hw.config | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 1:35 PM Kajol Jain wrote:
>
> Patch enhances current metric infrastructure to handle "?" in the metric
> expression. The "?" can be use for parameters whose value not known while
> creating metric events and which can be replace later at runtime to
> the proper value. It als
44 matches
Mail list logo
