On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Matt Porter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 11:57:44AM +0200, Piotr Perak wrote:
> > Because I use ibm405cr.c which works good with 2.4.23 I think that's not
> > the problem. Remember the call stack?
>
> Which 2.4 tree? linux-2.4, linuxppc-2.4, and linuxppc_2_4_devel have
In message you
wrote:
>
>but the PDF file doesn't refer explicitly to SMC1, just to the
> generic SMC(UART). does this mean that the same instructions to
It relates to the SMC which parameter RAM location is in conflict
with the SPI/I2C parameter RAM, i. e. SMC1.
> relocate SMC1 cou
Matt Porter wrote:
Sorry about previously posting back to linuxppc-dev but this post,
originally started on it :-\
>On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 12:58:57AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>
>
PCI device IRQs are normally retrieved straight from the PCI device
itself. Sounds like a firmwar
Hi to all,
As long as I have seen (tested and surfed in the code), current
linuxppc_2.4.26_devel support for MPC8272ADS board is limited to one PHY,
without MII management support and the interface is always configured as Half
Duplex. Unfourtunately, this is little useful for me, as long as i am
> I am currently working on a 8245 based board with 2.4.27 e100 driver
> and when taking in (and processing streams), only about 50 Mbps can be
> handled: about half of the time is based in kernel space (handling
> interrupts).
Is your e100 driver having NAPI support?
What's the cache size of your
I see some mails passing over the list about gigabit interfaces, so I
wonder if there are any suggestions as to what processor/interface
should be used for high througput.
I am currently working on a 8245 based board with 2.4.27 e100 driver
and when taking in (and processing streams), only about 5
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> In message you
> wrote:
>>
>>but the PDF file doesn't refer explicitly to SMC1, just to the
>> generic SMC(UART). does this mean that the same instructions to
>
> It relates to the SMC which parameter RAM location is in conflict
> with the SPI
>
> Is this a hobby project or a "for profit" project? If it's for profit,
> then consider investing in a JTAG emulator (like BDI2000)...it'll pay
> for itself many times over.
>
And if you're poor, the Wiggler from ocdemon.net is a big help, and
only $150. I've only used the Wiggler under Wind
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Matt Porter wrote:
> Since you are failing in ocp_add_one_device() and you have a
> processor which doesn't have a chip definition in 2.6, the
> problem is probably somewhere there. Doublecheck your
> arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/ibm405cr.c (you do have one, right?)
> against a kn
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 04:12:18PM +0200, alebas at televes.com wrote:
> So, is there any plan to merge any of Arabella's changes into the ppc tree? Or
> is there anyone currently working on that ethernet stuff for current 2.4.26
> tree? Is it planned to provide a patch soon?
Have you asked Arabe
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 05:47:57PM +0200, Piotr Perak wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2004, Matt Porter wrote:
> > Hrm, I see. Did your firmware change between your working 2.4 kernel
> > and your non-working 2.6 kernel? If you're failing in there that would
> > be my first thought. I suppose that's proba
Hi Matt,
while writing some BSP code for a 440GX custom board, I noticed, that
the DCRN_SDR_PFC1_EPS and DCRN_SDR_PFC1_EPS_SHIFT definitions are wrong and
therefore the functions ibm440gx_get_eth_grp() and ibm440gx_set_eth_grp()
won't
work correctly.
This patch will fix this, please apply.
TIA,
i'm reading the microcode patch PDF doc file describing the
relocation of I2C/SPI/SMC for the 850. as i've mentioned, in my case,
i've relocated *specifically* SMC1 so i can use SCC3 for ethernet and
it seems to work just fine.
but the PDF file doesn't refer explicitly to SMC1, just to
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 03:33:16PM +0200, Marc Leeman wrote:
> I see some mails passing over the list about gigabit interfaces, so I
> wonder if there are any suggestions as to what processor/interface
> should be used for high througput.
>
> I am currently working on a 8245 based board with 2.4.2
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 11:57:44AM +0200, Piotr Perak wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2004, Matt Porter wrote:
>
> > Since you are failing in ocp_add_one_device() and you have a
> > processor which doesn't have a chip definition in 2.6, the
> > problem is probably somewhere there. Doublecheck your
> >
> I see your point of view and disagree.
Fine.
>> But hey, let not me stop you from doing this.
>
> Don't worry, you won't. :)
Good :-)
Segher
>> Sure. But the interrupt _assignment_ should be done by firmware.
>
> I can't argue with ideaology.
It's not ideology; it's what the PCI spec says.
>> p.s. And I know this isn't always practically possible; but why
>> then support a product like that at all, in the Open Source
>> community?
>
>>> This assumes a world where everything is managed by magic BIOS/OF
>>> initialization. That's not the case for this user's board port.
>>
>> The OS (Linux, specifically) won't do it for you. It has to be set up
>> beforehand. Unless "embedded Linux" gets this the wrong way around
>> as well.
>
>> PCI device IRQs are normally retrieved straight from the PCI device
>> itself. Sounds like a firmware problem (or the bootloader, if that
>> sets up the PCI devices for you).
>
> This assumes a world where everything is managed by magic BIOS/OF
> initialization. That's not the case for this use
[Whoops, SMTP problem. Sorry if it's a duplicate now.]
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Segher Boessenkool
> Date: 28 september 2004 0:39:32 GMT-05:00
> To: Matt Porter
> Cc: David Gardiner ,
> linuxppc-embedded at ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: powerpc with gigabit card hanging
>
>>> What kernel
On Tue, Sep 28, 2004 at 01:45:27AM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >> Sure. But the interrupt _assignment_ should be done by firmware.
> >
> > I can't argue with ideaology.
>
> It's not ideology; it's what the PCI spec says.
>
> >> p.s. And I know this isn't always practically possible; but
21 matches
Mail list logo
