On 01:09-20150131, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> +linux-omap
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 04:43:30PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
> > registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
> > gic_get_cpumask() will print a
On 01:09-20150131, Felipe Balbi wrote:
+linux-omap
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 04:43:30PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
gic_get_cpumask() will print a critical
On 2015-01-31 01:43, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
> registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
> gic_get_cpumask() will print a critical message saying
>
> GIC CPU mask not found - kernel will fail to boot.
>
> if
On 2015-01-31 01:43, Stephen Boyd wrote:
In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
gic_get_cpumask() will print a critical message saying
GIC CPU mask not found - kernel will fail to boot.
if these
+linux-omap
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 04:43:30PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
> registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
> gic_get_cpumask() will print a critical message saying
>
> GIC CPU mask not found -
+linux-omap
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 04:43:30PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
gic_get_cpumask() will print a critical message saying
GIC CPU mask not found - kernel
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:51:59AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Blah. OK then, just send it to Thomas.
>
> Initially this code was written and committed by RMK which is why I
> suggested you send him the fix.
It _should_, because the author of the file presumably knows how the
driver is
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 12:51:59AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
Blah. OK then, just send it to Thomas.
Initially this code was written and committed by RMK which is why I
suggested you send him the fix.
It _should_, because the author of the file presumably knows how the
driver is supposed
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/22, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> > > On 07/17, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 07/17/13
On 08/22, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> > On 07/17, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > >>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013,
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/17, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >
> > >> On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > >>>
> > On 07/12/13
On 07/17, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>>
> On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 07/12, Javi Merino
On 08/22, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/17, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 08/22, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/17, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On 07/17, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
I agree, we should
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/17, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/20, Bedia, Vaibhav wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 05:09:33, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
> > registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
> > gic_get_cpumask() will print a critical message saying
> >
On 07/20, Bedia, Vaibhav wrote:
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 05:09:33, Stephen Boyd wrote:
In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
gic_get_cpumask() will print a critical message saying
GIC CPU
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 05:09:33, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
> registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
> gic_get_cpumask() will print a critical message saying
>
> GIC CPU mask not found - kernel will fail
Hi,
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 05:09:33, Stephen Boyd wrote:
In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
gic_get_cpumask() will print a critical message saying
GIC CPU mask not found - kernel will fail to
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>> On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
> I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in uniprocessors and
>
On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
>> On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>
On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
>> I agree, we should drop the check.
On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
>> On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in uniprocessors and
unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
> >> I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in uniprocessors and
> >> unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic entry in the dt
> >> is wrong.
And that's a
On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
>> I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in uniprocessors and
>> unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic entry in the dt
>> is wrong.
>>
> Ok. How about this?
Any comments?
>
> 8<-
> Subject:
On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in uniprocessors and
unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic entry in the dt
is wrong.
Ok. How about this?
Any comments?
8-
Subject: [PATCH v2]
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in uniprocessors and
unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic entry in the dt
is wrong.
And that's a likely
On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in uniprocessors and
unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic entry in the dt
On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in uniprocessors and
unlikely to be found in
On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 12:39:33AM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
> > registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
> > gic_get_cpumask() will print a critical message saying
> >
> >
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 12:39:33AM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
> registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
> gic_get_cpumask() will print a critical message saying
>
> GIC CPU mask not found - kernel will
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 12:39:33AM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
gic_get_cpumask() will print a critical message saying
GIC CPU mask not found - kernel will fail to
On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
On Sat, Jul 06, 2013 at 12:39:33AM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
In a uniprocessor implementation the interrupt processor targets
registers are read-as-zero/write-ignored (RAZ/WI). Unfortunately
gic_get_cpumask() will print a critical message saying
GIC CPU
34 matches
Mail list logo
