Hello,
When Linux is booting, when does it verify if a initrd exists ?
Thanks
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
I'm working on some drivers for I2C bus support on some of my sparc64
workstations (for lm-sensor and eeprom type devices sitting behind
them) so I went back to trying to get of_i2c.c usable on sparc.
Mostly straightforward stuff _except_ for the I2C address encoding.
What I2C IEEE1275 device
sparc: Implement irq_of_parse_and_map() and irq_dispose_mapping().
This allows more OF layer code to be shared between powerpc and
sparc.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/sparc/include/asm/prom.h |8
arch/sparc/kernel/of_device.c | 11 +++
of_i2c: Add sparc support.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/of/Kconfig |2 +-
drivers/of/of_i2c.c | 58 --
2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/of/Kconfig b/drivers/of/Kconfig
of: Add some I2C mod aliases table entries for sparc64 systems.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/of/base.c |4 +++-
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c
index ad8ac1a..e849f69 100644
---
Hello,
What are the constraints in order to implement a irq_init function ?
I think it has to set the mask. Does it enable IRQ ?
What is the aim or get_irq ? Does it retun an information about the mask,
the states, or... ?
Thanks
Sébastien Chrétien
This adds support for a simple ppc405ep board.
At the moment, there are no 405ep boards in arch/powerpc, so this can be used
as a template
for new boards, or migrating them from arch/ppc.
I2c, UART and EMAC are working. PCI could not be tested, so it was not included
in the dts.
Signed-off-by:
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Arnd Bergmann writes:
Paul, any chance we can still get this into 2.6.27?
Possibly. We'll need a really good explanation for Linus as to why
this is needed (what regression or serious bug this fixes) and why it
is late. Can you send me
Exactly, I mean ppc_md.init_IRQ().
Ok. What have I to setup in this function ? I set the mask and other
registers. Is it right ? How do I chose the mask ?
At the end of this funtion, IRQ are disable. Is that right ? So who does
enable IRQs ?
Sorry for all this questions, I am learning the low
Hi Andrew,
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 18:16:26 -0700 Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
powerpc allmodconfig:
ERROR: CMO_PageSize [arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/cmm.ko] undefined!
(needed for 2.6.27)
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Arnd Bergmann | 2008-08-21 00:40:58 [+0200]:
On Wednesday 20 August 2008, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
I didn't convert the NDFC driver to support OF because there are
non-OF-aware platforms with the ndfc chip.
All settings are mandatory except the oob layout.
Are you aware of Sean's patch from
Hi Paul,
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:01:43 +1000 Paul Mackerras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK. I think we need to export CMO_PrPSP and CMO_SecPSP as well.
(Lovely names. :()
These are only used (indirectly) in lparcfg.c which is never a module, so
should be OK.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Hi Markus,
One small nit:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:07:58 +0200 Markus Brunner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+#include linux/init.h
+#include linux/of_platform.h
+
+#include asm/machdep.h
+#include asm/ppc4xx.h
+#include asm/time.h
+#include asm/udbg.h
+#include asm/uic.h
+
+static int __init
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
That's all output from the wrapper, not the kernel. And the kernel
config doesn't make a difference at all to the wrapper. I wonder if
there is some weird size issue going on there or if whatever U-Boot
version you are using is doing odd
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 10:14 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Arnd Bergmann writes:
Paul, any chance we can still get this into 2.6.27?
Possibly. We'll need a really good explanation for Linus as to why
this is needed (what regression or
Hi all,
I've just put up a new beta of patchwork:
http://patchwork2.ozlabs.org/
I intend to replace the existing patchwork with the new code, but would
like to get it tested first. There aren't many patches in the system at
the moment, but it'll receive patches from the relevant lists. I'll
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Sebastian Siewior wrote:
Yes, I heard of it. tglx told me that the IP-Core might show up in
non-IBM HW and it would be better not to drop the platform support.
Thomas, any example of that? I would guess that all powerpc and microblaze
systems would use the
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 10:07 +0200, Markus Brunner wrote:
This adds support for a simple ppc405ep board.
At the moment, there are no 405ep boards in arch/powerpc, so this can be used
as a template
for new boards, or migrating them from arch/ppc.
I2c, UART and EMAC are working. PCI could not
Stefan Roese wrote:
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
That's all output from the wrapper, not the kernel. And the kernel
config doesn't make a difference at all to the wrapper. I wonder if
there is some weird size issue going on there or if whatever U-Boot
version you are
Please pull from 'for-2.6.27' branch of
master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/galak/powerpc.git for-2.6.27
to receive the following updates:
This is bug fixes and defconfig updates. I dropped the Kconfig cpm serial
patch for 2.6.27 since its not really a bug fix and put it into
Fix warnings of the form:
arch/powerpc/math-emu/fsubs.c:15: warning: 'R_f1' may be used uninitialized in
this function
arch/powerpc/math-emu/fsubs.c:15: warning: 'R_f0' may be used uninitialized in
this function
Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
I intend these patches to go via
On 8/21/08, Josh Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I plan on adding more 405 board support very soon. When I do, it'll be
along the lines of the patch series I just sent out for 44x. There's
really no reason to have a per CPU/board file if we can avoid it.
Your code is simple enough overall,
Hello,
I am trying to setup a initrd on my board. I selected initrd support in the
2.6.26 kernel. But when my boad boots, it crashes affet MMU:exit.
What is the process in order to use a initrd ?
Thanks
Sébastien Chrétien
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Valentine Barshak wrote:
Stefan Roese wrote:
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
That's all output from the wrapper, not the kernel. And the kernel
config doesn't make a difference at all to the wrapper. I wonder if
there is some weird size issue going on there or if
Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:06:51 -0500
Hollis Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To be honest I unfortunately don't know how big the impact for
non-virtualized systems is. I would like to test it, but without
hardware performance counters on the core I have I'm not sure
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 10:07 +0200, Markus Brunner wrote:
This adds support for a simple ppc405ep board.
At the moment, there are no 405ep boards in arch/powerpc, so this can be
used as a template
for new boards, or migrating them from
On Aug 19, 2008, at 5:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Christian Ehrhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dependent on the already existing CONFIG_KVM_GUEST config option
this patch
changes wrteei to wrtee allowing the hypervisor to rewrite those to
nontrapping
instructions. Maybe we should split
The following series implements basic board support for GE Fanuc's SBC610, a
6U single board computer, based on Freescale's MPC8641D.
This series provides basic functionality:
- The board can boot with a serial console.
- Ethernet works, though the phys are polled.
- The PCI bus is scanned and
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Aug 19, 2008, at 5:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Christian Ehrhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dependent on the already existing CONFIG_KVM_GUEST config option this
patch
changes wrteei to wrtee allowing the hypervisor to rewrite those to
nontrapping
instructions. Maybe
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Valentine Barshak wrote:
It seems that your bootwrapper is somehow not copying the correct MAC
address to the device-tree. Not sure what's going wrong here. We usually
don't use the bootwrapper but boot the uImage directly from U-Boot on all
4xx systems.
You
On Aug 21, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
Hi Kumar,
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:50:20 -0500 Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Fix warnings of the form:
arch/powerpc/math-emu/fsubs.c:15: warning: 'R_f1' may be used
uninitialized in this function
arch/powerpc/math-emu/fsubs.c:15:
On Aug 21, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Aug 19, 2008, at 5:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Christian Ehrhardt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dependent on the already existing CONFIG_KVM_GUEST config option
this patch
changes wrteei to wrtee allowing the
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Steven A. Falco wrote:
Your diagnosis is correct! I changed the define from 820 to 821 and it
now boots. Previously the parameters were at 7ffe70, and this change moved
them to fffe70.
Good.
I would like to switch over to using a uImage rather than the
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Steven A. Falco wrote:
I would like to switch over to using a uImage rather than the cuboot.uImage.
Can you actually boot a plain uImage from U-Boot?
I've just gave it a try. While arch/powerpc/boot/cuImage.sequoia boots fine,
after `make uImage', I get
Support for the SBC610 VPX Single Board Computer from GE Fanuc (PowerPC
MPC8641D).
This is the basic board support for GE Fanuc's SBC610, a 6U single board
computer, based on Freescale's MPC8641D.
Signed-off-by: Martyn Welch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/powerpc/boot/dts/gef_sbc610.dts | 268
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Steven A. Falco wrote:
I would like to switch over to using a uImage rather than the
cuboot.uImage.
Can you actually boot a plain uImage from U-Boot?
Sure. We did this all the time in arch/ppc. Now in arch/powerpc
Support for the SBC610 VPX Single Board Computer from GE Fanuc (PowerPC
MPC8641D).
This is the default config file for GE Fanuc's SBC610, a 6U single board
computer, based on Freescale's MPC8641D.
Signed-off-by: Martyn Welch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/powerpc/configs/gef_sbc610_defconfig |
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 20:20 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 10:14 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Arnd Bergmann writes:
Paul, any chance we can still get this into 2.6.27?
Possibly. We'll need a really good
I'm using DENX-2.6.26, and I've enabled the I2C_IBM_IIC on a Sequoia board,
but I don't see any probes happening.
It looks like of_register_i2c_devices is never being called. According to
cscope, it would be called in i2c-ibm_of.c, but that file is not part of
the build.
i2c-ibm_of.c would be
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 15:42 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 10:07 +0200, Markus Brunner wrote:
This adds support for a simple ppc405ep board.
At the moment, there are no 405ep boards in arch/powerpc, so this can be
used
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 09:21:39AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
Where is the other discussion? I'd like to understand what's going on
here.. (especially since I added the wrtee[i] changes to kernel way
back when).
Presumably, they want to be able to replace wrtee with a store to a
Benh suggested that I made this more known, and in particular to this list, so
I send this mail in hope that some people might be interested. In particular,
I ran the following benchmarks against libfreevec/glibc:
http://www.freevec.org/content/libfreevec_104_benchmarks_updated
libfreevec has
The following patch enables building the I2C driver for 4xx chips.
Tested on a Sequoia board. Comments invited.
Signed-off-by: Steven A. Falco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig |7 +++
drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-ibm_of.c |5 ++---
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 12:21 -0400, Steven A. Falco wrote:
The following patch enables building the I2C driver for 4xx chips.
Tested on a Sequoia board. Comments invited.
Signed-off-by: Steven A. Falco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig |7 +++
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
Mostly straightforward stuff _except_ for the I2C address encoding.
What I2C IEEE1275 device binding was used to write that code in
of_i2c.c? Is it some PowerPC specific thing? Was it invented
by the embedded folks (I hope not)?
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:06:24 -0400
Steven A. Falco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 12:21 -0400, Steven A. Falco wrote:
The following patch enables building the I2C driver for 4xx chips.
Tested on a Sequoia board. Comments invited.
Signed-off-by: Steven
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:06:24 -0400
Steven A. Falco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, while the i2c-ibm_of.c driver works with the sequoia .dts,
i2c-ibm_iic.c does not, because it is looking for an index property,
which is not in the .dts file. I added one:
I don't know where i2c-ibm_of.c
Martyn Welch wrote:
Support for the SBC610 VPX Single Board Computer from GE Fanuc (PowerPC
MPC8641D).
This is the basic board support for GE Fanuc's SBC610, a 6U single board
computer, based on Freescale's MPC8641D.
Signed-off-by: Martyn Welch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Jon Loeliger wrote:
+mpic: [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
+clock-frequency = 0;
+interrupt-controller;
+#address-cells = 0;
+#interrupt-cells = 2;
+reg = 0x0004 0x0004;
+built-in;
+compatible =
Dear Geert,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
Can you actually boot a plain uImage from U-Boot?
yes, of course you can (you will need a device tree, too).
I've just gave it a try. While arch/powerpc/boot/cuImage.sequoia boots fine,
after `make uImage', I get arch/powerpc/boot/uImage,
Dear Valentine Barshak,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
U-boot thinks that all memory above the first 8MB is out of reach for
the kernel and puts kernel bootargs and boardinfo structure below 8MB as
close as possible to this limit. Including the i2c driver into the
kernel
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:06:24 -0400
Steven A. Falco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, while the i2c-ibm_of.c driver works with the sequoia .dts,
i2c-ibm_iic.c does not, because it is looking for an index property,
which is not in the .dts
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/gef_sbc610.dts b/arch/powerpc/
boot/dts/gef_sbc610.dts
new file mode 100644
index 000..32168c6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/gef_sbc610.dts
@@ -0,0 +1,268 @@
+/*
+ * GE Fanuc SBC610 Device Tree Source
+ *
+ * Copyright 2008 GE Fanuc
On Aug 21, 2008, at 1:50 PM, Becky Bruce wrote:
This fixes a build warning when PHYS_64BIT is enabled, and
removes an unnecessary cast to phys_addr_t (the variable
being cast is already a phys_addr_t)
Signed-off-by: Becky Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/powerpc/mm/fsl_booke_mmu.c |5
Also change consumers of various lmb funcs/arrays that are now
phys_addr_t to also be phys_addr_t.
Signed-off-by: Becky Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c | 19 ++-
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/mem.c
Some feedback:
* Can we increase the font size a bit?
* For the list of patches can we change the background of every other
line (light gray)
* Parsing subject header for determining state -- [RFC]
w/o being able to log in that's my initial two cents.
Both otherwise it looks good and seem
Stefan Roese wrote:
On Thursday 21 August 2008, Sean MacLennan wrote:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:06:24 -0400
Steven A. Falco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, while the i2c-ibm_of.c driver works with the sequoia .dts,
i2c-ibm_iic.c does not, because it is looking for an index property,
which is
From: Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:50:20 -0500
Fix warnings of the form:
arch/powerpc/math-emu/fsubs.c:15: warning: 'R_f1' may be used uninitialized
in this function
arch/powerpc/math-emu/fsubs.c:15: warning: 'R_f0' may be used uninitialized
in this function
From: Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:50:21 -0500
Some architectures (like powerpc) provide status information on the exact
type of invalid exception. This is pretty straight forward as we already
report invalid exceptions via FP_SET_EXCEPTION.
We add new flags
This rearranges a bit of code, and adds support for
36-bit physical addressing for configs that use a
hashed page table. The 36b physical support is not
enabled by default on any config - it must be
explicitly enabled via the config system.
This patch *only* expands the page table code to
From: Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:32:56 -0500
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
2) When CONFIG_SPARC, shift the device address down by one bit before
giving it to the Linux I2C layer.
Maybe we should distinguish by the type of I2C
David Miller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
2) When CONFIG_SPARC, shift the device address down by one bit before
giving it to the Linux I2C layer.
Maybe we should distinguish by the type of I2C bus node instead.
How so? If a Sparc and a PowerPC
#define _PMD_PRESENT0
#define _PMD_PRESENT_MASK (PAGE_MASK)
@@ -517,7 +522,13 @@ extern unsigned long
bad_call_to_PMD_PAGE_SIZE(void);
#define pte_none(pte) ((pte_val(pte) ~_PTE_NONE_MASK) == 0)
#define pte_present(pte)(pte_val(pte) _PAGE_PRESENT)
+
+#if
From: Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:35:02 -0500
David Miller wrote:
If you guys created this format in your compressed openfirmware
trees, is it possible for you to fix it to match what Sparc
systems following the proper bindings do?
Possibly, though it'll cause
On 8/21/08, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm working on some drivers for I2C bus support on some of my sparc64
workstations (for lm-sensor and eeprom type devices sitting behind
them) so I went back to trying to get of_i2c.c usable on sparc.
Mostly straightforward stuff _except_
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:17AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
sparc: Implement irq_of_parse_and_map() and irq_dispose_mapping().
This allows more OF layer code to be shared between powerpc and
sparc.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/sparc/include/asm/prom.h
From: Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:53:02 -0400
2) When CONFIG_SPARC, shift the device address down by one bit before
giving it to the Linux I2C layer.
How do you deal with a 10-bit address i2c device? Is it multiplied by two too?
Yes.
From: Anton Vorontsov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 01:56:11 +0400
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:17AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
@@ -96,6 +96,14 @@ static inline void of_node_put(struct device_node *node)
{
}
+/* These routines are here to provide compatibility with how
On Aug 21, 2008, at 4:03 PM, David Miller wrote:
From: Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:50:20 -0500
Fix warnings of the form:
arch/powerpc/math-emu/fsubs.c:15: warning: 'R_f1' may be used
uninitialized in this function
arch/powerpc/math-emu/fsubs.c:15: warning: 'R_f0'
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 11:32 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
Mostly straightforward stuff _except_ for the I2C address encoding.
What I2C IEEE1275 device binding was used to write that code in
of_i2c.c? Is it some PowerPC specific
It's not really an instruction-set architecture issue, it's a binding
issue. What if a non-OF embedded SPARC comes along that copies i2c from
a PowerPC DTS file, or we come across a real-OF PowerPC that does it the
SPARC way?
Like PowerMac ? :-)
Apple additionally have different ways of
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 14:45 -0700, David Miller wrote:
As far as I can tell from poking around
http://penguinppc.org/historical/dev-trees-html/, they don't include
reg
at all for i2c clients.
That actually simplifies things for us, thanks for checking.
Unfortunately, while that may be
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 13:28 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 19 August 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+static inline long kvm_hypercall1(unsigned int nr, unsigned long p1)
+{
+ register unsigned long hcall asm (r0) = nr;
+ register unsigned long arg1 asm (r3) = p1;
+
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:05:50 +1000
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 14:45 -0700, David Miller wrote:
As far as I can tell from poking around
http://penguinppc.org/historical/dev-trees-html/, they don't include
reg
at all for i2c clients.
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:05:02 +1000
Apple additionally have different ways of representing multiple busses
on one controller though. On some machines, they just use bits 0xF00 of
the address as the bus number, which is a bit gross, and on some,
Thanks for the clarification. The bus encoding seems different
but we can solve that too.
I've started a dialogue between Scott and the openfirmware Sun
folks I know so that hopefully Scott can get a copy of the I2C
bindings Sun uses and we can sort all of this out.
Sure. Currently the
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 15:28 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:05:02 +1000
Apple additionally have different ways of representing multiple busses
on one controller though. On some machines, they just use bits 0xF00 of
the
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:10 AM, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of: Add some I2C mod aliases table entries for sparc64 systems.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to see a comment above these three lines stating that they
appear in Sparc systems, but otherwise...
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 15:32 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
Some feedback:
* Can we increase the font size a bit?
NOO. Just use CTRL-SHIFT-+.
* For the list of patches can we change the background of every other
line (light gray)
That would work well.
* Parsing subject header for
From: Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:52:32 -0600
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 1:10 AM, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
of: Add some I2C mod aliases table entries for sparc64 systems.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'd like to see a comment
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Miller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
If you guys created this format in your compressed openfirmware
trees, is it possible for you to fix it to match what Sparc
systems following
From: Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:14:57 -0600
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Miller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
If you guys created this format in your compressed
On 8/21/08, Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Miller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
If you guys created this format in your compressed openfirmware
trees, is it
On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 16:32 -0700, David Miller wrote:
From: Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:14:57 -0600
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Miller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 12:10:12AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to do some compile testing of my cpufreq driver. If
I disable modules I am getting multiple definition errors of inline
functions:
inline volatile unsigned int get_PLL(void)
{
unsigned int ret;
__asm__ __volatile__ (mfspr %0,%1:
=r(ret):
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/21/08, Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ugh, more like loads of pain. There are deployed platforms using the
embedded 'invented' bindings. I don't think it is an option to break
compatibility with older trees.
On 8/21/08, Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Jon Smirl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/21/08, Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ugh, more like loads of pain. There are deployed platforms using the
embedded 'invented' bindings. I don't think it
From: Josh Boyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 21:15:37 -0400
Huge? I'd say mistake, but not necessarily huge. I mean nobody other
than you (at least in the context of this conversation) had access to
the IEEE1275 proposed binding so it wasn't like there was tons to go on.
I
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:53 PM, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have patience with the embedded people that are both new to
OpenFirmware and trying to make stuff work at the same time. I
think the devicetree-discuss list will help here as new bindings are
proposed. I hope you're
Ok, I've integrated the feedback I got from various reviewers and for
now I'm going to handle the sparc vs. powerpc aspects with a helper
asm/of_i2c.h header file that implements the address fetching.
I think for the time being this is the best solution. If the
semantics converge, we can merge
sparc: Implement irq_of_parse_and_map() and irq_dispose_mapping().
This allows more OF layer code to be shared between powerpc and
sparc.
With feedback and suggestions from Anton Vorontsov.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/sparc/include/asm/prom.h | 10 ++
of_i2c: Add Sparc support.
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/sparc/include/asm/of_i2c.h | 67 +++
drivers/of/Kconfig |2 +-
2 files changed, 68 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
create mode 100644
of_i2c: Abstract out register property interpretation.
Pull out client I2C device address calculation into a
helper function, of_i2c_fetch_addr.
At the top level we try to determine the reported
#address-cells property in the I2C bus adapter node,
and default to 1 if the property is not found.
From: Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:18:56 -0600
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:53 PM, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have patience with the embedded people that are both new to
OpenFirmware and trying to make stuff work at the same time. I
think the
Hi, I wrote most of 1275.
Mitch Bradley ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
David Miller wrote:
From: Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:18:56 -0600
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 9:53 PM, David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have patience with the embedded people that are both new
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Mitch Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I wrote most of 1275.
Mitch Bradley ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Hi Mitch,
What is your suggestion. Where should we be discussing new device
tree bindings? Whether it be real Open Firmware, or flattened device
tree, or
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 04:17:32 pm Mark Nelson wrote:
Hi All,
What follows is an updated version of copy_4K_page that has been tuned
for the Cell processor. With this new routine it was found that the
system time measured when compiling a 2.6.26 pseries_defconfig was
reduced by ~10s:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Grant Likely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:29 PM, Mitch Bradley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I wrote most of 1275.
Mitch Bradley ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Hi Mitch,
What is your suggestion. Where should we be discussing new device
tree
Add a new CPU feature bit, CPU_FTR_CP_USE_DCBTZ, to be added to the
64bit powerpc chips that benefit from having dcbt and dcbz
instructions used in their memory copy routines.
This will be used in a subsequent patch that updates copy_4K_page().
The new bit is added to Cell, PPC970 and Power4
This new copy_4K_page() function was originally tuned for the best
performance on the Cell processor, but after testing on more 64bit
powerpc chips it was found that with a small modification it either
matched the performance offered by the current mainline version or
bettered it by a small
1 - 100 of 103 matches
Mail list logo
