Hi Greg
Am Freitag, 14. November 2014, 10:50:40 schrieb Greg Bellows:
> On 14 November 2014 09:34, Tim Sander wrote:
> > > > > 0xbfffe000? You where talking about the fact that the security
> > > > > extensions
> > > > > where not implemented. I was not aware that the different vbar's
> >
> > wh
On 14 November 2014 09:34, Tim Sander wrote:
> > > > 0xbfffe000? You where talking about the fact that the security
> > > > extensions
> > > > where not implemented. I was not aware that the different vbar's
> where
> > > > already part of the security stuff?
> > >
> > > MVBAR is part of the Secu
> > > 0xbfffe000? You where talking about the fact that the security
> > > extensions
> > > where not implemented. I was not aware that the different vbar's where
> > > already part of the security stuff?
> >
> > MVBAR is part of the Security extensions. HVBAR is part of the
> > Virtualization ext
On 13 November 2014 10:46, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 13 November 2014 16:26, Tim Sander wrote:
> > This is the gcc inline assembly syntax from my kernel module written in
> c:
> > asm("mrc p15, 0, %0, c12, c0, 0" : "=r"(vbar) : : "cc");
> > asm("mrc p15, 0, %0, c12, c0, 1" : "=r"(mvbar) : : "cc"
On 13 November 2014 16:26, Tim Sander wrote:
> This is the gcc inline assembly syntax from my kernel module written in c:
> asm("mrc p15, 0, %0, c12, c0, 0" : "=r"(vbar) : : "cc");
> asm("mrc p15, 0, %0, c12, c0, 1" : "=r"(mvbar) : : "cc"); <- not implemented?
> asm("mrc p15, 4, %0, c12, c0, 0" :
Am Donnerstag, 13. November 2014, 09:09:33 schrieb Greg Bellows:
> On 13 November 2014 07:58, Tim Sander wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 12. November 2014, 10:00:03 schrieb Greg Bellows:
> > > On 12 November 2014 07:56, Tim Sander wrote:
> > > > Hi Greg
> > > >
> > > > > > Bad mode in data abort handler
On 13 November 2014 07:58, Tim Sander wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 12. November 2014, 10:00:03 schrieb Greg Bellows:
> > On 12 November 2014 07:56, Tim Sander wrote:
> > > Hi Greg
> > >
> > > > > Bad mode in data abort handler detected
> > > > > Internal error: Oops - bad mode: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
>
Am Mittwoch, 12. November 2014, 10:00:03 schrieb Greg Bellows:
> On 12 November 2014 07:56, Tim Sander wrote:
> > Hi Greg
> >
> > > > Bad mode in data abort handler detected
> > > > Internal error: Oops - bad mode: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
> > > > Modules linked in: firq(O) ipv6
> > > > CPU: 0 PID:
On 12 November 2014 07:56, Tim Sander wrote:
> Hi Greg
>
> > > Bad mode in data abort handler detected
> > > Internal error: Oops - bad mode: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
> > > Modules linked in: firq(O) ipv6
> > > CPU: 0 PID: 103 Comm: systemd-udevd Tainted: G O 3.14.0 #1
> > > task: bf2b930
Hi Greg
> > Bad mode in data abort handler detected
> > Internal error: Oops - bad mode: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP ARM
> > Modules linked in: firq(O) ipv6
> > CPU: 0 PID: 103 Comm: systemd-udevd Tainted: G O 3.14.0 #1
> > task: bf2b9300 ti: bf362000 task.ti: bf362000
> > PC is at 0x1240
> >
Hi Tim,
Responses inline.
Regards,
Greg
On 4 November 2014 09:40, Tim Sander wrote:
> Hi Greg
> > Ah... Yes, using A9 (GICv1) which means you don't have grouping without
> the
> > security extensions.
> Ok switching the GIC to version 2 works seems to work. In a way that Linux
> still
> boots
Hi Greg
> Ah... Yes, using A9 (GICv1) which means you don't have grouping without the
> security extensions.
Ok switching the GIC to version 2 works seems to work. In a way that Linux still
boots up and i get a FIQ.
I have some problems still:
It seems as if the exeption of the bugsplat below
is
On 3 November 2014 10:22, Tim Sander wrote:
> Hi Greg
>
> Thanks for your fast reply.
> > I am still in the process of getting the security extension portion of
> the
> > GIC patches fully up and running. By the sounds of your use, it sounds
> > like you just want FIQ support not necessarily sec
Hi Greg
Thanks for your fast reply.
> I am still in the process of getting the security extension portion of the
> GIC patches fully up and running. By the sounds of your use, it sounds
> like you just want FIQ support not necessarily secure GIC support. Would
> this be correct?
Yes. More elabor
Hi
I am currently wetting my toes with qemu. I have written a small test hw
device which creates interrupts and has some registers on a arm vexpress
platform. Now i would like to switch the interrupt of the hw to FIQ mode.
I noticed that the mainline qemu does not seem to have FIQ emulation but
Hi Tim,
I am still in the process of getting the security extension portion of the
GIC patches fully up and running. By the sounds of your use, it sounds
like you just want FIQ support not necessarily secure GIC support. Would
this be correct?
I recently sent out an updated set of patches for r
16 matches
Mail list logo
