On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 15:24 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 15:17 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > > Which doesn't really make sense. FSP says it's running (runtime).
> > >
> > > The end of the OPAL log is below.
> > >
> > > I think
Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
> On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 15:17 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Which doesn't really make sense. FSP says it's running (runtime).
>>
>> The end of the OPAL log is below.
>>
>> I think your patch means we're now calling slw_reinit(), whereas
>> previously we would
On Wed, 2017-06-28 at 15:17 +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> Which doesn't really make sense. FSP says it's running (runtime).
>
> The end of the OPAL log is below.
>
> I think your patch means we're now calling slw_reinit(), whereas
> previously we would skip it?
Ugh... and slw_reinit() is some
Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
> That will allow OPAL to configure the CPU in an optimal way.
>
> Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> ---
>
> The matching OPAL change has been sent to the skiboot list.
>
> Setting those bits in the reinit() call with an older OPAL
> will result in the call r
That will allow OPAL to configure the CPU in an optimal way.
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt
---
The matching OPAL change has been sent to the skiboot list.
Setting those bits in the reinit() call with an older OPAL
will result in the call returning an error which Linux ignores
but it wil
