On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 07:43:20AM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 21:04 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:11:56AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>>>
===Required System State===
>> [...]
>>
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Jamie Lokier [mailto:ja...@shareable.org]
> Sent: 30 March 2010 01:27
[...]
> > It could be worth clarifying that the L1 I-cache is the
> _only_ cache
> > which is permitted to be enabled at kernel entry, and that
> all other
> > caches in the system
uss; Philippe Robin; David Rusling; Jeremy
> > Kerr; Dave P Martin; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> > Subject: Re: RFC: ARM Boot standard for passing device tree blob
>
> [...]
>
> > 2. No ARM CPU supports having the D-cache enabled without the MMU; the
>
Martin; linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: ARM Boot standard for passing device tree blob
[...]
> 2. No ARM CPU supports having the D-cache enabled without the MMU; the
>data cache needs to be told via the page tables what can be cached
>and what can
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 01:52:24PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> I could change the statement to something like, "virtually tagged or
> indexed data cache(s) must be off", or drop the statement entirely
> since it is implied by the requirement that the MMU must be off.
1. We're not going down the p
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 07:43:20AM -1000, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> What is the reason for turning off the data caches? Leaving all caches
> turned on and coherent with one another has always worked well for me at
> the interface from firmware to a booted program.
With the data caches on, you ne
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> > Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 21:04 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:11:56AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> *IRQs disabled
> *MM
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Grant Likely wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
>> > Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 21:04 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:11:56
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Mitch Bradley wrote:
> Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 21:04 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:11:56AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
*IRQs disabled
*MMU off
*Instruction cache either on or off
*D
Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 21:04 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:11:56AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
===Required System State===
[...]
*IRQs disabled
*MMU off
*Instruction cache either on or off
*Data cache turned off
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 21:04 +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:11:56AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > ===Required System State===
[...]
> > *IRQs disabled
> > *MMU off
> > *Instruction cache either on or off
> > *Data cache turned off
>
> Would recommend saying "Da
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:11:56AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
>> ===Required System State===
>> *Quiesce all DMA
>> *CPU register contents
>> **r0 = 0
>> **r1 = Linux machine number (as defined in the ARM Linux machine database)
>
> > > ===Required System State===
> > > *Quiesce all DMA
> > > *CPU register contents
> > > **r0 = 0
> > > **r1 = Linux machine number (as defined in the ARM Linux machine
> > > database) or 0
> >
> > 0 is a valid machine number. What is your purpose of passing 0?
>
> Presumably a machine number
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 09:04:09PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:11:56AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Since work is being done to add ARM Flattened Device Tree support to
> > both Linux and FreeBSD, I think it would be worth while to agree on
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 09:11:56AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Since work is being done to add ARM Flattened Device Tree support to
> both Linux and FreeBSD, I think it would be worth while to agree on a
> common boot interface for passing a device tree blob from firmware to
> the ker
Hi all,
Since work is being done to add ARM Flattened Device Tree support to
both Linux and FreeBSD, I think it would be worth while to agree on a
common boot interface for passing a device tree blob from firmware to
the kernel (or in the case of kexec, from the old to new kernels).
I've drafted u
16 matches
Mail list logo
