On Oct 2, 2007, at 10:51 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of just removing the muram code from qe_lib, and
>> having it use the code in cpm_common.c.
>
> Do we want to have the QE library include CPM code at this point?
> I know we want to merge some QE and CPM c
Timur Tabi wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of just removing the muram code from qe_lib, and having
>> it use the code in cpm_common.c.
>
> Do we want to have the QE library include CPM code at this point? I
> know we want to merge some QE and CPM code, but I would rather do that
Timur Tabi wrote:
> The code to process this node is qe_muram_init() in
> arch/powerpc/sysdev/qe_lib/qe.c.
>
> if ((np = of_find_node_by_name(NULL, "data-only")) != NULL) {
> address = *of_get_address(np, 0, &size, &flags);
> of_node_put(np);
> rh_attach_region(&qe_mur
Scott Wood wrote:
> I was thinking of just removing the muram code from qe_lib, and having
> it use the code in cpm_common.c.
Do we want to have the QE library include CPM code at this point? I know we
want to merge some QE and CPM code, but I would rather do that in one shot
than piecemeal.
Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>
>> Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> On Sep 29, 2007, at 1:49 AM, Vitaly Bordug wrote:
cpms have dpram, qe has muram. these two are the same stuff in fact.
Or you are asking about have QE stuff utilize such a binding at the
>>
On Sep 28, 2007, at 2:06 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
> The way the current CPM binding describes available multi-user (a.k.a.
> dual-ported) RAM doesn't work well when there are multiple free
> regions,
> and it doesn't work at all if the region doesn't begin at the start of
> the muram area (as the
On Oct 1, 2007, at 11:10 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Sep 29, 2007, at 1:49 AM, Vitaly Bordug wrote:
>>> cpms have dpram, qe has muram. these two are the same stuff in
>>> fact. Or you are asking about have QE stuff utilize such a
>>> binding at the same pass?
>> I was aski
Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2007, at 1:49 AM, Vitaly Bordug wrote:
>> cpms have dpram, qe has muram. these two are the same stuff in fact.
>> Or you are asking about have QE stuff utilize such a binding at the
>> same pass?
>
> I was asking about both these things.
As stated in the commit
On Sep 29, 2007, at 1:49 AM, Vitaly Bordug wrote:
> Hello Kumar,
>
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:53:38 -0500
> Kumar Gala wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Vitaly Bordug wrote:
>>
>>> Kumar,
>>>
>>> Realizing this may suffer a bit from cleanest-dts flame war, but
>>> anyway I pretty much see
Hello Kumar,
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:53:38 -0500
Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Vitaly Bordug wrote:
>
> > Kumar,
> >
> > Realizing this may suffer a bit from cleanest-dts flame war, but
> > anyway I pretty much see a lot of
> > sense in getting this in during next merge wi
On Sep 28, 2007, at 3:30 PM, Vitaly Bordug wrote:
> Kumar,
>
> Realizing this may suffer a bit from cleanest-dts flame war, but
> anyway I pretty much see a lot of
> sense in getting this in during next merge window. Is this possible?
Probably, does QE have muram? I can't keep these things st
Kumar,
Realizing this may suffer a bit from cleanest-dts flame war, but anyway I
pretty much see a lot of
sense in getting this in during next merge window. Is this possible?
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:06:16 -0500
Scott Wood wrote:
> The way the current CPM binding describes available multi-user (a
Hello Scott,
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:10:51 -0500
Scott Wood wrote:
> Vitaly Bordug wrote:
> > Hello Scott,
> >
> > Looks good, only one note:
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:06:16 -0500
> > Scott Wood wrote:
> >
> >> + im_dprambase = cpm2_immr->im_dprambase;
> >> +
> >>/* Attach the usable
Vitaly Bordug wrote:
> Hello Scott,
>
> Looks good, only one note:
>
> On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:06:16 -0500
> Scott Wood wrote:
>
>> +im_dprambase = cpm2_immr->im_dprambase;
>> +
>> /* Attach the usable dpmem area */
>> /* XXX: This is actually crap. CPM_DATAONLY_BASE and
>> *
Hello Scott,
Looks good, only one note:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:06:16 -0500
Scott Wood wrote:
> + im_dprambase = cpm2_immr->im_dprambase;
> +
> /* Attach the usable dpmem area */
> /* XXX: This is actually crap. CPM_DATAONLY_BASE and
>* CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE is only a subset o
The way the current CPM binding describes available multi-user (a.k.a.
dual-ported) RAM doesn't work well when there are multiple free regions,
and it doesn't work at all if the region doesn't begin at the start of
the muram area (as the hardware needs to be programmed with offsets into
this area).
16 matches
Mail list logo
