On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 11:23:58PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 15 August 2013 23:18, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > But doesn't that mean that there is _currently_ no problem ? If so,
> > we can introduce the additional code when the problem really shows up.
> > Being Preemptive is good, but if it
On 08/15/2013 03:23 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 15 August 2013 23:18, Guenter Roeck wrote:
But doesn't that mean that there is _currently_ no problem ? If so,
we can introduce the additional code when the problem really shows up.
Being Preemptive is good, but if it is not really needed today
I
On 15 August 2013 23:18, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> But doesn't that mean that there is _currently_ no problem ? If so,
> we can introduce the additional code when the problem really shows up.
> Being Preemptive is good, but if it is not really needed today
> I would rather have today's problems resol
On 08/15/2013 02:49 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 15 August 2013 21:50, Guenter Roeck wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 07:05:22PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
It needs to go in the same patch, because a kernel with the fixed
irq remapping must also tell QEMU it is fixed; if you split the
two then a
On 15 August 2013 21:50, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 07:05:22PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> It needs to go in the same patch, because a kernel with the fixed
>> irq remapping must also tell QEMU it is fixed; if you split the
>> two then at the point between the two patches th
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 07:05:22PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 15 August 2013 18:54, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 05:45:42PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 13 August 2013 04:40, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> > Patch tested and working with qemu 1.5.2, using the configura
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 07:05:22PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 15 August 2013 18:54, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 05:45:42PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 13 August 2013 04:40, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> > Patch tested and working with qemu 1.5.2, using the configura
On 15 August 2013 18:54, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 05:45:42PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 13 August 2013 04:40, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> > Patch tested and working with qemu 1.5.2, using the configuration file
>> > from the yocto project. Patch applied on top of kernel v
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 05:45:42PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 13 August 2013 04:40, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > Patch tested and working with qemu 1.5.2, using the configuration file
> > from the yocto project. Patch applied on top of kernel version 3.11-rc5.
>
> OK, I tested this on PB926+PCI
On 13 August 2013 04:40, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Patch tested and working with qemu 1.5.2, using the configuration file
> from the yocto project. Patch applied on top of kernel version 3.11-rc5.
OK, I tested this on PB926+PCI backplane hardware, and it is
definitely better than current mainline, i
On 08/14/2013 05:44 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 14 August 2013 11:33, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 04:04:08PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hacked diff is below. Can I write that up as clean patch and submit it,
or do we need a test on real hardware ?
Well, if we wan
On 14 August 2013 13:49, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 01:44:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Yes, I definitely think we should test on the hardware before we
>> land yet another change to this PCI code that hasn't really been
>> thoroughly tested on anything. I have
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 01:44:44PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 14 August 2013 11:33, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 04:04:08PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> >> Hacked diff is below. Can I write that up as clean patch and submit it,
> >> or do we need a test on r
On 14 August 2013 11:33, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 04:04:08PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> Hacked diff is below. Can I write that up as clean patch and submit it,
>> or do we need a test on real hardware ?
>
> Well, if we want to ensure that it is really correct,
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 04:04:08PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> Hacked diff is below. Can I write that up as clean patch and submit it,
> or do we need a test on real hardware ?
Well, if we want to ensure that it is really correct, the sensible thing
to do is to try it on real hardware, otherwise
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 03:37:31AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> Because working with old and new qemu, like it used to before everybody
> fiddled with it to not actually match hardware nobody _has_, is
> definitely not an interesting goal.
It appears that people *do* have the hardware.
What is
On 13 August 2013 09:37, Rob Landley wrote:
> Peter says he knows somebody who knows somebody who dug some instance of
> this hardware out of some landfill or something.
No, I personally myself had the hardware. Really.
> Me, I want to get something that works on new qemu _and_ last year's
> qem
On 08/12/2013 11:45:49 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 05:24:50PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 12 August 2013 01:40, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 08/11/2013 03:04 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> It could be that it's qemu's PCI routing is wrong - it's not
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 05:24:50PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
[ ... ]
> If somebody would like to fix the kernel I am happy to
> locate the PCI backplane and test everything (again).
> I would suggest that producing some patches which work
> with QEMU 1.5 or later would be a good start; then we
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:12:50PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:36:17PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On this point, yes. Equivalent bit from the PB926 TRM:
> > http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.dui0224i/Cacdijji.html
> >
> > (There are diffe
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:12:50PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:36:17PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On this point, yes. Equivalent bit from the PB926 TRM:
> > http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.dui0224i/Cacdijji.html
> >
> > (There are diffe
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:36:17PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On this point, yes. Equivalent bit from the PB926 TRM:
> http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.dui0224i/Cacdijji.html
>
> (There are differences between the PCI controllers on
> the different boards. Differences I know of
On 12 August 2013 22:21, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 09:49:54PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 12 August 2013 21:06, Russell King - ARM Linux
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 06:33:28PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >> /* Slot to IRQ mapping for RealVie
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 09:49:54PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 12 August 2013 21:06, Russell King - ARM Linux
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 06:33:28PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> /* Slot to IRQ mapping for RealView EB and PB1176 backplane
> >> * nameslotIntA
On 12 August 2013 20:02, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
>
> If I recall correctly, I'd showed the patch to Russell at the time (via
> IRC, I believe) and he'd told me essentially the same thing as the above
> paragraph, which is why I didn't put it in the patch system, and why the
> commit log of the yocto
On 12 August 2013 21:06, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 06:33:28PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> /* Slot to IRQ mapping for RealView EB and PB1176 backplane
>> * nameslotIntAIntBIntCIntD
>> * A 31 IRQ50 IRQ51 IR
On 13-08-11 08:40 PM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 08/11/2013 03:04 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 08:54:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> trying to boot arm versatile images with qemu results in the following error
>>> if I try to boot with a disk image.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 06:33:28PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> /* Slot to IRQ mapping for RealView EB and PB1176 backplane
> * nameslotIntAIntBIntCIntD
> * A 31 IRQ50 IRQ51 IRQ48 IRQ49
> * B 30 IRQ49 IRQ50 IRQ51
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 05:24:50PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 12 August 2013 01:40, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On 08/11/2013 03:04 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >> It could be that it's qemu's PCI routing is wrong - it's not the first
> >> time that qemu has got something wrong.
>
> Q
On 12 August 2013 17:45, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> In other words, if you have the circuit diagrams or other documentation
> which definitively identifies the wiring, then please send it to me.
I've just checked and the schematics are provided on the CDROM
"Versatile Family Product Suppor
On 12 August 2013 17:45, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 05:24:50PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 12 August 2013 01:40, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> > On 08/11/2013 03:04 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> >> It could be that it's qemu's PCI routing is wrong - it's no
On 12 August 2013 01:40, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 08/11/2013 03:04 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>> It could be that it's qemu's PCI routing is wrong - it's not the first
>> time that qemu has got something wrong.
QEMU 1.5 has had its Versatile PCI routing code rewritten to
correspond with
On 08/11/2013 03:04 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 08:54:43AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
Hi,
trying to boot arm versatile images with qemu results in the following error
if I try to boot with a disk image.
sym0: <895a> rev 0x0 at pci :00:0d.0 irq 92
33 matches
Mail list logo
