On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:39:06AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 08:25:30AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
The address decoding window to access the BootROM should not be
allocated programatically, but instead declared in the device tree.
Signed-off-by: Ezequiel
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:02:00AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
Verifying the DT is setup this way and aborting if it is not seems
like a good idea..
I agree it's a nice idea, but I'm not too sure how to accomplish this
in a simple and generic way. There's nothing in the DT that allows
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:58:34AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 07:02:00AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
Verifying the DT is setup this way and aborting if it is not seems
like a good idea..
I agree it's a nice idea, but I'm not too sure how to accomplish
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:58:24PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
I wasn't sure you wanted to panic(), to clip on available CPUs,
or to just do a pr_warn / WARN(), so here's a piece of code:
(disclaimer: non-tested, non-compiled, etc.)
Up to you, but you know it won't work if it isn't right so
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 12:03:20PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 02:58:24PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
I wasn't sure you wanted to panic(), to clip on available CPUs,
or to just do a pr_warn / WARN(), so here's a piece of code:
(disclaimer: non-tested,
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 08:25:30AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
The address decoding window to access the BootROM should not be
allocated programatically, but instead declared in the device tree.
Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia ezequiel.gar...@free-electrons.com
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 11:39:06AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 08:25:30AM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
The address decoding window to access the BootROM should not be
allocated programatically, but instead declared in the device tree.
Signed-off-by: Ezequiel
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 04:43:31PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
I think some kind of test is needed here. As I understand it the SMP
startup uses a trampoline in the boot rom and the boot rom *must* be
mapped to 0xfff0 ?
Yes, that's my understanding as well, but I will do some
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 05:02:42PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
Having the kernel enforce that the DT node is present and at the right
location, I think, is helpful for the bootloader folks to ensure they
write correct DTs.
Granted. But then I wonder... why do we bother to put the BootROM
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:10:21PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 05:02:42PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
Having the kernel enforce that the DT node is present and at the right
location, I think, is helpful for the bootloader folks to ensure they
write correct
10 matches
Mail list logo
