Re: [PATCH] powerpc: irq_data conversion

2011-02-14 Thread Lennert Buytenhek
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 11:07:15AM -0700, Grant Likely wrote: > > This patch converts powerpc over to the new irq_data based irq_chip > > functions, as was done earlier for ARM and some other architectures. > > > > struct irq_data is described here: > > > > > > http://git.kernel.org/?p=linu

Re: [PATCH V8 03/10] USB/ppc4xx: Add Synopsys DWC OTG Core InterfaceLayer

2011-02-14 Thread Greg KH
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 08:53:21AM -, David Laight wrote: > > > > Sorry, I don't understand that. I think u32 is always 32bit > > > 4byte on all archs. Right? > > > > Yes. > > > > Use an unsigned long if you want to hold a pointer correctly on all > > arches. > > Although that is true for

Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers

2011-02-14 Thread Blanchard, Hollis
On 02/13/2011 01:24 PM, Linus Walleij wrote: >> > 3. Userspace interfaces for accessing the mailboxes. A >> > '/dev/mailbox1', '/dev/mailbox2', etc... mapping, for example. > What kind of business does userspace have with directly using > mailboxes? Enlighten me so I get it... in our

Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers

2011-02-14 Thread Ira W. Snyder
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:03:59PM +0200, Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Jamie Iles wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 03:19:51PM -0600, Meador Inge wrote: > >>     1. Hardware specific bits somewhere under '.../arch/*'.  Drivers > >>        for the MPIC message register

Re: [PATCH V8 03/10] USB/ppc4xx: Add Synopsys DWC OTG Core InterfaceLayer

2011-02-14 Thread Alexander Gordeev
В Mon, 14 Feb 2011 08:53:21 - "David Laight" пишет: > > > > Sorry, I don't understand that. I think u32 is always 32bit > > > 4byte on all archs. Right? > > > > Yes. > > > > Use an unsigned long if you want to hold a pointer correctly on all > > arches. > > Although that is true for man

Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] tcm ibmvscsis driver

2011-02-14 Thread Nicholas A. Bellinger
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 19:25 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > This is the third version of tcm ibmvscsis driver. You can find the > first version at: > > http://marc.info/?t=12973408564&r=1&w=2 > > The changes are: > v3: > - fix task attribute (convert MSG_* to TASK_ATTR_*) > v2: > - send VIOSR

[PATCH v3 3/3] tcm ibmvscsis driver

2011-02-14 Thread FUJITA Tomonori
This is the third version of tcm ibmvscsis driver. You can find the first version at: http://marc.info/?t=12973408564&r=1&w=2 The changes are: v3: - fix task attribute (convert MSG_* to TASK_ATTR_*) v2: - send VIOSRP_MAD_NOT_SUPPORTED for unknown mad type requests. - fix inquiry typo - sends

Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers

2011-02-14 Thread Ohad Ben-Cohen
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Jamie Iles wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 03:19:51PM -0600, Meador Inge wrote: >>     1. Hardware specific bits somewhere under '.../arch/*'.  Drivers >>        for the MPIC message registers on Power and OMAP4 mailboxes, for >>        example. >>     2. A highe

Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers

2011-02-14 Thread Jamie Iles
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 03:19:51PM -0600, Meador Inge wrote: > 1. Hardware specific bits somewhere under '.../arch/*'. Drivers >for the MPIC message registers on Power and OMAP4 mailboxes, for >example. > 2. A higher level driver under '.../drivers/mailbox/*'. That the >

Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers

2011-02-14 Thread Hiroshi DOYU
From: Hiroshi DOYU Subject: Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:55:53 +0200 (EET) > From: ext Linus Walleij > Subject: Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:39:32 +0100 > >> On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Hiroshi DOYU wrote:

Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers

2011-02-14 Thread Linus Walleij
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Hiroshi DOYU wrote: > Does db5500 use IOMMU for mapping shared memories? Nope, it's a fixed physical allocation from the modem side of the world. Yours, Linus Walleij ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.oz

Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers

2011-02-14 Thread Hiroshi DOYU
From: ext Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:39:32 +0100 > On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Hiroshi DOYU wrote: > >> OMAP mailbox is the interrupt driven 32bit unit H/W FIFO to other >> cores. > > How is it used? Is it a low-traffic (li

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] tcm ibmvscsis driver

2011-02-14 Thread Nicholas A. Bellinger
On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 12:48 +0900, FUJITA Tomonori wrote: > This is the second version of tcm ibmvscsis driver. You can find the > first version at: > > http://marc.info/?t=12973408564&r=1&w=2 > > The changes are: > > - send VIOSRP_MAD_NOT_SUPPORTED for unknown mad type requests. > - fix inq

RE: [PATCH V8 03/10] USB/ppc4xx: Add Synopsys DWC OTG Core InterfaceLayer

2011-02-14 Thread David Laight
> > Sorry, I don't understand that. I think u32 is always 32bit > > 4byte on all archs. Right? > > Yes. > > Use an unsigned long if you want to hold a pointer correctly on all > arches. Although that is true for many systems (and probably all ppc Linux) it isn't necessarily true (eg 64 bit Mi

Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers

2011-02-14 Thread Hiroshi DOYU
Hi Meador, From: ext Meador Inge Subject: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:19:51 -0600 > Hi All, > > I am currently working on building AMP systems using OpenMCAPI > (https://bitbucket.org/hollisb/openmcapi/wiki/Home) as the > inter-processor communication mecha

Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers

2011-02-14 Thread Linus Walleij
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Hiroshi DOYU wrote: > OMAP mailbox is the interrupt driven 32bit unit H/W FIFO to other > cores. How is it used? Is it a low-traffic (like single 32bit words etc) signal control-path link while the actual high-throughput data-path is done with shared memory? (Tha

Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers

2011-02-14 Thread Hiroshi DOYU
From: ext Linus Walleij Subject: Re: [RFC] Inter-processor Mailboxes Drivers Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 22:16:12 +0100 > 2011/2/12 Sundar : > >> At least I would like this; I wanted to generalize such mailbox IPCs >> right from the day when I was working on one, but coudnt really >> work on that. >>