TSEC/MDIO bug in recent kernels

For those of you who are running into this error: 24520:01 not found eth0: Could not attach to PHY IP-Config: Failed to open eth0 IP-Config: Device `eth0' not found. There is a bug in recent kernels. I found it in 2.6.28.7: linux/arch/powerpc/sysdev/fsl_soc.c.~1

Re: TSEC/MDIO bug in recent kernels

(I did not get to complete the message!) For those of you who are running into this error: 24520:01 not found eth0: Could not attach to PHY IP-Config: Failed to open eth0 IP-Config: Device `eth0' not found. There is a bug in recent kernels. I found it in 2.6.28.7:

[PATCH] powerpc: Remove extra semicolon in fsl_soc.c

A semicolon at the end of the macro means that the for loop has an empty body, and so TSEC/MDIO will not work with older device trees. This fix only applies to 2.6.28; apparently, this code is gone for 2.6.29, according to Grant Likely! Signed-off-by: Johns Daniel --- --- linux-2.6.28.7/arch

[PATCH] powerpc: Remove extra semicolon in fsl_soc.c (2nd try)

TSEC/MDIO will not work with older device trees because of a semicolon at the end of a macro resulting in an empty for loop body. This fix only applies to 2.6.28; this code is gone in 2.6.29, according to Grant Likely! Signed-off-by: Johns Daniel <mailto:johns.dan...@gmail.

PCIe interrupts in the device tree

Could somebody please explain the declaration of the PCIe interrupts in the device tree? I was under the impression that PCIe interrupts in the PowerPC Linux kernel default to using INTx signaling (vs. external IRQ pin assertion and MSI signaling). Am I right? If so, then do the interrupt-map lin

Re: PCIe interrupts in the device tree

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Johns Daniel wrote: > > Could somebody please explain the declaration of the PCIe interrupts >> in the device tree? >> >> I was under the impression that PCIe interrupts in the Powe

Re: PCIe interrupts in the device tree

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Johns Daniel wrote: > >> >> On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kumar Gala >> wrote: >> >> On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Johns Daniel wrote: >> >> Could somebody pl

Common kernel image for e300 and e500v2

Is it possible -- and prudent -- to use a single kernel binary image for two similar boards, one based on an e300 core and the other on an e500v2 core? I was surprised to see that the e500v2-targeted toolchain did build the kernel for the e300 board just fine. Don't know whether this will always b

Re: Common kernel image for e300 and e500v2

there other things I am not considering? -- Johns On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Scott Wood wrote: > Johns Daniel wrote: > >> Is it possible -- and prudent -- to use a single kernel binary image >> for two similar boards, one based on an e300 core and the other on an >>