On Friday 19 February 2016 18:07:25 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:31:02PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Yet, the only reason for a default here is to accommodate automatic
> > build tests like randconfig, right?
> >
> > If so then this should be "fixed" by having
On Friday 19 February 2016 18:07:25 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:31:02PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Yet, the only reason for a default here is to accommodate automatic
> > build tests like randconfig, right?
> >
> > If so then this should be "fixed" by having
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:31:02PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Yet, the only reason for a default here is to accommodate automatic
> build tests like randconfig, right?
>
> If so then this should be "fixed" by having the config system provide
> built-in symbols that can be tested from kconfig
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 12:31:02PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Yet, the only reason for a default here is to accommodate automatic
> build tests like randconfig, right?
>
> If so then this should be "fixed" by having the config system provide
> built-in symbols that can be tested from kconfig
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT exists to support an init-time decided phys offset,
> and it supports this by modifying each location that the phys offset
> is used. It determines this by looking at the location that the early
> init code is executing,
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT exists to support an init-time decided phys offset,
> and it supports this by modifying each location that the phys offset
> is used. It determines this by looking at the location that the early
> init code is executing,
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 19 February 2016 11:10:22 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
> > > >
> > > > Is
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 19 February 2016 11:10:22 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
> > > >
> > > > Is there a way to
On 19 Feb 2016, Russell King wrote:
> Using the DTB location on XIP platforms is a no-goer - the flattened
> DTB information can be fixed, so on an XIP platform it makes sense
> for this to also be in flash, not in RAM (the whole point of XIP is
> to remove constant data from RAM after all, so
On 19 Feb 2016, Russell King wrote:
> Using the DTB location on XIP platforms is a no-goer - the flattened
> DTB information can be fixed, so on an XIP platform it makes sense
> for this to also be in flash, not in RAM (the whole point of XIP is
> to remove constant data from RAM after all, so
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 04:34:51PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 19 February 2016 14:29:00 Chris Brandt wrote:
> > On 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
> > > >
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 04:34:51PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 19 February 2016 14:29:00 Chris Brandt wrote:
> > On 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
> > > >
> > > > Is
On Friday 19 February 2016 11:10:22 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
> > >
> > > Is there a way to provide a default for defaults?
...
> > and
On Friday 19 February 2016 11:10:22 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
> > >
> > > Is there a way to provide a default for defaults?
...
> > and then select one of
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
> >
> > Is there a way to provide a default for defaults?
>
> We could have something like
>
> config PHYS_OFFSET_0
> bool
>
> config
On Fri, 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
> >
> > Is there a way to provide a default for defaults?
>
> We could have something like
>
> config PHYS_OFFSET_0
> bool
>
> config PHYS_OFFSET_1
>
On Friday 19 February 2016 14:29:00 Chris Brandt wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
> > >
> > > Is there a way to provide a default for defaults?
> >
> > We could
On Friday 19 February 2016 14:29:00 Chris Brandt wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> > On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > >
> > > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
> > >
> > > Is there a way to provide a default for defaults?
> >
> > We could have something
On 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
> >
> > Is there a way to provide a default for defaults?
>
> We could have something like
>
> config PHYS_OFFSET_0
> bool
>
> config
On 19 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >
> > Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
> >
> > Is there a way to provide a default for defaults?
>
> We could have something like
>
> config PHYS_OFFSET_0
> bool
>
> config PHYS_OFFSET_1
>
On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
>
> Is there a way to provide a default for defaults?
We could have something like
config PHYS_OFFSET_0
bool
config PHYS_OFFSET_1
bool
config PHYS_OFFSET_2
bool
On Thursday 18 February 2016 11:02:33 Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> Acked-by: Nicolas Pitre
>
> Is there a way to provide a default for defaults?
We could have something like
config PHYS_OFFSET_0
bool
config PHYS_OFFSET_1
bool
config PHYS_OFFSET_2
bool
... (we need 8 of
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> For platforms that are not yet converted to ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM,
> we can disable CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT, which in turn requires
> setting a correct address here.
>
> As we actualy know what all the values are supposed to be based
> on the old
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> For platforms that are not yet converted to ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM,
> we can disable CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT, which in turn requires
> setting a correct address here.
>
> As we actualy know what all the values are supposed to be based
> on the old
For platforms that are not yet converted to ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM,
we can disable CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT, which in turn requires
setting a correct address here.
As we actualy know what all the values are supposed to be based
on the old mach/memory.h header file contents (from git history),
we
For platforms that are not yet converted to ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM,
we can disable CONFIG_ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT, which in turn requires
setting a correct address here.
As we actualy know what all the values are supposed to be based
on the old mach/memory.h header file contents (from git history),
we
26 matches
Mail list logo