[PATCH 1/2] powerpc/pci: remove the stale comments of pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges

2013-05-17 Thread Kevin Hao
These comments already don't apply to the current code. So just remove them. Signed-off-by: Kevin Hao --- arch/powerpc/kernel/pci-common.c | 9 - 1 file changed, 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci-common.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci-common.c index 6053f03..8245d51 100644

[PATCH 2/2] powerpc/pci: remove the unused variables in pci_process_bridge_OF_ranges

2013-05-17 Thread Kevin Hao
The codes which ever used these two variables have gone. Throw away them too. Signed-off-by: Kevin Hao --- arch/powerpc/kernel/pci-common.c | 5 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci-common.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/pci-common.c index 8245d51..5

[PATCH] powerpc/pci: fix PCI-e check link issue

2013-05-17 Thread Yuanquan Chen
For Freescale powerpc platform, the PCI-e bus number uses the reassign mode by default. It means the second PCI-e controller's hose->first_busno is the first controller's last bus number adding 1. For some hotpluged device(or controlled by FPGA), the device is linked to PCI-e slot at linux runtime.

[PATCH 2/2] powerpc: split hugepage when using subpage protection

2013-05-17 Thread Aneesh Kumar K.V
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" We find all the overlapping vma and mark them such that we don't allocate hugepage in that range. Also we split existing huge page so that the normal page hash can be invalidated and new page faulted in with new protection bits. Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V --- arch

[PATCH 1/2] powerpc: use smp_rmb when looking at deposisted pgtable to store hash index

2013-05-17 Thread Aneesh Kumar K.V
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" We need to use smb_rmb when looking at hpte slot array. Otherwise we could reorder the hpte_slot array load bfore even we marked the pmd trans huge. Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V --- arch/powerpc/include/asm/pgtable-ppc64.h | 15 +++ arch/powerpc/mm/hugep

Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc: split hugepage when using subpage protection

2013-05-17 Thread Aneesh Kumar K.V
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" writes: > From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" > > We find all the overlapping vma and mark them such that we don't allocate > hugepage in that range. Also we split existing huge page so that the > normal page hash can be invalidated and new page faulted in with new > protection bits. > >

Re: [PATCH] can: flexcan: allow compilation on arm and powerpc

2013-05-17 Thread Marc Kleine-Budde
On 05/17/2013 04:03 AM, Shawn Guo wrote: > Hi Marc, > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 03:42:36PM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >> This patch removes the Kconfig symbols HAVE_CAN_FLEXCAN and >> IMX_HAVE_PLATFORM_FLEXCAN from arch/{arm,powerpc} and allowing compilation on >> all arm and powerpc platform

[PATCH v2] can: flexcan: remove HAVE_CAN_FLEXCAN Kconfig symbol

2013-05-17 Thread Marc Kleine-Budde
This patch removes the Kconfig symbol HAVE_CAN_FLEXCAN from arch/{arm,powerpc} and allowing compilation unconditionally on all arm and powerpc platforms. This brings a bigger compile time coverage and removes the following dependency warning found by Arnd Bergmann: warning: (SOC_IMX28 && SOC_

Re: [PATCH v2] can: flexcan: remove HAVE_CAN_FLEXCAN Kconfig symbol

2013-05-17 Thread Shawn Guo
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 10:59:17AM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > This patch removes the Kconfig symbol HAVE_CAN_FLEXCAN from arch/{arm,powerpc} > and allowing compilation unconditionally on all arm and powerpc platforms. > > This brings a bigger compile time coverage and removes the following

Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, x86, lbr: Demand proper privileges for PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL

2013-05-17 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 05:36:11PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 08:15:17PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: > >> Peter, > >> > >> BTW PowerPC also has the ability to filter on conditional branches. Any > >> chance

Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, x86, lbr: Demand proper privileges for PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL

2013-05-17 Thread Michael Neuling
Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 05:36:11PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote: > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra > > wrote: > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 08:15:17PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: > > >> Peter, > > >> > > >> BTW PowerPC also has the ability to filter

Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, x86, lbr: Demand proper privileges for PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL

2013-05-17 Thread Peter Zijlstra
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:32:08PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: > Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > Wouldn't it be mostly conditional branches that are the primary control flow > > and can get predicted wrong? I mean, I'm sure someone will miss-predict an > > unconditional branch but its not like we car

Re: PROBLEM: Only 2 of 4 cores used on IBM Cell blades and no threads shown in spufs

2013-05-17 Thread Dennis Schridde
Hello! Am Dienstag, 23. April 2013, 19:12:47 schrieb Michael Ellerman: > For me it is fixed by applying the following patch, it should be in v3.10: > > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/230103/ Can you please also backport this to 3.8? It is still missing in 3.8.12. The patch for cbe_init_pm_

Re: [PATCH] powerpc/cell: Only iterate over online nodes in cbe_init_pm_irq()

2013-05-17 Thread Dennis Schridde
Hello! Just wanted to remind you: The patchto fix cbe_init_pm_irq() that Michael and Grant sent me is still not included in Linux 3.8.12. --Dennis Am Dienstag, 23. April 2013, 22:14:51 schrieb Michael Ellerman: > None of the cell platforms support CPU hotplug, so we should iterate > only over o

Re: [PATCH 20/21] powerpc/ps3: remove inline marking of EXPORT_SYMBOL functions

2013-05-17 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Denis Efremov wrote: > EXPORT_SYMBOL and inline directives are contradictory to each other. > The patch fixes this inconsistency. > > Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org). > > Signed-off-by: Denis Efremov > --- > arch/powerpc/platforms/ps

Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, x86, lbr: Demand proper privileges for PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL

2013-05-17 Thread Stephane Eranian
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:32:08PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: >> Peter Zijlstra wrote: > >> > Wouldn't it be mostly conditional branches that are the primary control >> > flow >> > and can get predicted wrong? I mean, I'm sure someone w

Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, x86, lbr: Demand proper privileges for PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL

2013-05-17 Thread Michael Neuling
Stephane Eranian wrote: > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:32:08PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: > >> Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > >> > Wouldn't it be mostly conditional branches that are the primary control > >> > flow > >> > and can get pre

Re: [PATCH 3/3] perf, x86, lbr: Demand proper privileges for PERF_SAMPLE_BRANCH_KERNEL

2013-05-17 Thread Stephane Eranian
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 12:14 AM, Michael Neuling wrote: > Stephane Eranian wrote: > >> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 09:32:08PM +1000, Michael Neuling wrote: >> >> Peter Zijlstra wrote: >> > >> >> > Wouldn't it be mostly conditional branche