The pull request you sent on Mon, 26 May 2025 07:35:53 +0530:
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/powerpc/linux.git
> tags/powerpc-6.16-1
has been merged into torvalds/linux.git:
https://git.kernel.org/torvalds/c/3349ada3cffdbe4579872a004360daa31938f683
Thank you!
--
Deet-doot-d
On 5/26/25 10:47 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 26.05.25 16:50, Donet Tom wrote:
During node device initialization, `memory blocks` are registered under
each NUMA node. The `memory blocks` to be registered are identified
using
the node’s start and end PFNs, which are obtained from the node's
The function register_memory_blocks_under_node() is now only called from
the memory hotplug path, as register_memory_blocks_under_node_early()
handles registration during early boot. Therefore, the context argument
used to differentiate between early boot and hotplug is no longer needed
and was rem
On 26.05.25 16:50, Donet Tom wrote:
The register_one_node() function was a simple wrapper around
__register_one_node(). To simplify the code, register_one_node()
has been removed, and __register_one_node() has been renamed to
register_one_node().
Signed-off-by: Donet Tom
Acked-by: David Hilde
On 26.05.25 16:50, Donet Tom wrote:
During node device initialization, `memory blocks` are registered under
each NUMA node. The `memory blocks` to be registered are identified using
the node’s start and end PFNs, which are obtained from the node's pg_data
However, not all PFNs within this range
On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 05:39:50PM -0400, Frank Li wrote:
> Add vf610 reset controller, which used to reboot system to fix below
> CHECK_DTB warnings:
>
> arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/vf/vf610-bk4.dtb: /soc/bus@4000/src@4006e000:
> failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,vf610-src', 'sy
On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 04:45:23PM -0400, Frank Li wrote:
> Add fsl,imx23-digctl.yaml for i.MX23 and i.MX28 to fix below CHECK_DTB
> warning:
>
> arch/arm/boot/dts/nxp/mxs/imx23-sansa.dtb:
> /apb@8000/apbh-bus@8000/digctl@8001c000:
> failed to match any schema with compatible: ['fsl,i
The register_one_node() function was a simple wrapper around
__register_one_node(). To simplify the code, register_one_node()
has been removed, and __register_one_node() has been renamed to
register_one_node().
Signed-off-by: Donet Tom
---
arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/pci_dlpar.c | 2 +-
driv
register_one_node() is now only called via cpu_up() → __try_online_node()
during CPU hotplug operations to online a node.
At this stage, the node has not yet had any memory added. As a result,
there are no memory blocks to walk or register, so calling
register_memory_blocks_under_node() is unneces
The function register_mem_block_under_node_early() is no longer used,
as register_memory_blocks_under_node_early() now handles memory block
registration during early boot.
Removed register_mem_block_under_node_early() and get_nid_for_pfn(),
the latter was only used by the former.
Acked-by: Oscar
During node device initialization, `memory blocks` are registered under
each NUMA node. The `memory blocks` to be registered are identified using
the node’s start and end PFNs, which are obtained from the node's pg_data
However, not all PFNs within this range necessarily belong to the same
node—so
In fsl_mc_device_add(), use put_device() to give up the
device reference instead of kfree().
Fixes: bbf9d17d9875 ("staging: fsl-mc: Freescale Management Complex (fsl-mc)
bus driver")
Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Haoxiang Li
---
drivers/bus/fsl-mc/fsl-mc-bus.c | 4 +---
1 file chang
On Mon, May 26, 2025 at 04:36:22PM +0800, Haoxiang Li wrote:
> In fsl_mc_device_add(), use put_device() to give up the
> device reference instead of kfree().
>
> Fixes: bbf9d17d9875 ("staging: fsl-mc: Freescale Management Complex (fsl-mc)
> bus driver")
> Cc: sta...@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-b
Hi Christophe:
The for_each_child_of_node_scoped() helper provides a scope-based
clean-up functionality to put the device_node automatically, and
as such, there is no need to call of_node_put() directly.
I don't understand this explanation.
You say "no need to call of_node_put()" and the only
Hi Johannes:
Hi Johannes:
"simplifies the code" is no need to callof_node_put() .
Fair. Except that's not what you _actually_ changed here. Like I said,
either it's buggy before or after.
In the function i2sbus_probe, it not return a struct device_node, so , I
think function for_each_child
On Mon, 2025-05-26 at 16:20 +0800, Ai Chao wrote:
> Hi Johannes:
> > > Hi Johannes:
> > >
> > > > > "simplifies the code" is no need to callof_node_put() .
> > > > Fair. Except that's not what you _actually_ changed here. Like I said,
> > > > either it's buggy before or after.
> > > >
> > > In th
Hi Johannes:
"simplifies the code" is no need to callof_node_put() .
Fair. Except that's not what you _actually_ changed here. Like I said,
either it's buggy before or after.
In the function i2sbus_probe, it not return a struct device_node, so , I
think function for_each_child_of_node_scoped
On Mon, 2025-05-26 at 16:12 +0800, Ai Chao wrote:
> Hi Johannes:
>
> > > "simplifies the code" is no need to callof_node_put() .
> > Fair. Except that's not what you _actually_ changed here. Like I said,
> > either it's buggy before or after.
> >
> In the function i2sbus_probe, it not return a st
On Fri, 23 May 2025 at 18:02, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 10:26:34AM +0200, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 May 2025 at 18:42, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, May 21, 2025 at 01:12:20PM +0300, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> > > > > I tried, but the last patch
19 matches
Mail list logo
