On 21/05/18 10:27, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>
> On 18/05/18 22:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>> Is below patch does what you were looking for ?
>>
>> Somewhat.
>> See below for some minors.
>>
>
> Thanks
>
>>> of_property_read_u64 searche
On 18/05/18 22:50, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>
>> Is below patch does what you were looking for ?
>
> Somewhat.
> See below for some minors.
>
Thanks
>> of_property_read_u64 searches for a property in a device node and read
>> a 64-bit val
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 6:47 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Is below patch does what you were looking for ?
Somewhat.
See below for some minors.
> of_property_read_u64 searches for a property in a device node and read
> a 64-bit value from it. Instead of using of_get_property to get the
> property a
On 16/05/18 11:56, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> On 15/05/18 20:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>>> On 05/11/2018 06:57 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>>
- cache_size = of_get_property(this_leaf->of_node, propname, NULL);
+
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 10:08:25AM +0100, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 17/05/18 07:54, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:15:08PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> >> Hi Greg,
> >>
> >> Have you had a chance to look at the cachinfo parts of this patch?
> >
> > Nope :)
> >
> > I d
Hi Greg,
On 17/05/18 07:54, Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:15:08PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> Hi Greg,
>>
>> Have you had a chance to look at the cachinfo parts of this patch?
>
> Nope :)
>
> I didn't write that, and while it is dumped in the driver core section
> of the kernel,
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 12:15:08PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> Have you had a chance to look at the cachinfo parts of this patch?
Nope :)
I didn't write that, and while it is dumped in the driver core section
of the kernel, I know nothing about it. If you get an ack from Sundeep
Hi Andy,
On 15/05/18 20:32, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> On 05/11/2018 06:57 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>
>>> - cache_size = of_get_property(this_leaf->of_node, propname, NULL);
>>> + cache_size = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:15 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> On 05/11/2018 06:57 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> - cache_size = of_get_property(this_leaf->of_node, propname, NULL);
>> + cache_size = of_get_property(np, propname, NULL);
>> if (cache_size)
>> this_leaf->s
Hi Greg,
Have you had a chance to look at the cachinfo parts of this patch?
Comments?
Thanks,
On 05/11/2018 06:57 PM, Jeremy Linton wrote:
The original intent in cacheinfo was that an architecture
specific populate_cache_leaves() would probe the hardware
and then cache_shared_cpu_map_setup
The original intent in cacheinfo was that an architecture
specific populate_cache_leaves() would probe the hardware
and then cache_shared_cpu_map_setup() and
cache_override_properties() would provide firmware help to
extend/expand upon what was probed. Arm64 was really
the only architecture that wa
11 matches
Mail list logo
