Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: gpio driver for mpc8349/8572/8610 and compatible

2008-09-22 Thread Peter Korsgaard
Kumar == Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, Kumar Also, any plans to follow this up with .dts updates to add the Kumar GPIO block into the various files we have? Yes, but I wanted to get the driver/dts bindings in the tree first. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard

Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: gpio driver for mpc8349/8572/8610 and compatible

2008-09-22 Thread Peter Korsgaard
Kumar == Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kumar On Sep 21, 2008, at 2:46 PM, Peter Korsgaard wrote: +GPIO controllers on MPC8xxx SoCs + +Every GPIO controller node must have #gpio-cells property defined, +this information will be used to translate gpio-specifiers. + Kumar Can

[PATCH v3] powerpc: gpio driver for mpc8349/8572/8610 and compatible with OF bindings

2008-09-22 Thread Peter Korsgaard
Structured similar to the existing QE GPIO support. Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Changes since v2: - Clarified documentation as requested by Kumar. Changes since v1: Incorporated feedback from Anton and Kumar: - Core is also used on 8572/8610 so s/83xx/8xxx/ - Use

Re: [PATCH v2] bootwrapper: support u-boot multi component images

2008-09-22 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Peter Korsgaard, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: From: peter Korsgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support uImage.platform, which are U-Boot multi component images containing a kernel, dtb and possibly an initrd. NAK. Please do not add such a patch to mainline. + uImage.%:

Re: [PATCH v2] bootwrapper: support u-boot multi component images

2008-09-22 Thread Peter Korsgaard
Wolfgang == Wolfgang Denk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi, Support uImage.platform, which are U-Boot multi component images containing a kernel, dtb and possibly an initrd. Wolfgang NAK. Wolfgang Please do not add such a patch to mainline. I agree that FIT images probably are the way to

Re: solution to printk() blocking interrupts?

2008-09-22 Thread Sergei Shtylyov
Hello. Jon Smirl wrote: Implementing the poll_controller() method in the network driver is usually staightforward. Good tip, the simple implementation worked. What controls this? carrier detect appears untrustworthy, waiting 4 seconds IIRC, it happens if netpoll code sees the

[RFC][PATCH] Demultiplexing SIGTRAP signal

2008-09-22 Thread Srinivasa Ds
Currently a SIGTRAP signal can denote any one of below reasons. - Breakpoint hit - H/W debug register hit - Single step - SIGTRAP signal sent through kill() or rasie() Architectures like powerpc/parisc provides infrastructure to demultiplex SIGTRAP signal by

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Demultiplexing SIGTRAP signal

2008-09-22 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Srinivasa Ds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Currently a SIGTRAP signal can denote any one of below reasons. - Breakpoint hit - H/W debug register hit - Single step - SIGTRAP signal sent through kill() or rasie() Architectures like powerpc/parisc provides

Re: [PATCH v2] bootwrapper: support u-boot multi component images

2008-09-22 Thread Wolfgang Denk
Dear Peter, In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote: Wolfgang NAK. Wolfgang Please do not add such a patch to mainline. I agree that FIT images probably are the way to go for the future, but I do think there's room for uImage.% just like we have cuImage.% for really old uboots. I

Re: solution to printk() blocking interrupts?

2008-09-22 Thread Sergei Shtylyov
Hello, I wrote: diff --git a/drivers/net/fec_mpc52xx.c b/drivers/net/fec_mpc52xx.c index 4e4f683..72541b5 100644 --- a/drivers/net/fec_mpc52xx.c +++ b/drivers/net/fec_mpc52xx.c @@ -401,6 +401,16 @@ static int mpc52xx_fec_hard_start_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *d return

Re: solution to printk() blocking interrupts?

2008-09-22 Thread Sergei Shtylyov
Hello. Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: Implementing the poll_controller() method in the network driver is usually staightforward. Good tip, the simple implementation worked. What controls this? carrier detect appears untrustworthy, waiting 4 seconds Get that fixed and this patch could

Re: solution to printk() blocking interrupts?

2008-09-22 Thread Sergei Shtylyov
Hello, I wrote: What controls this? carrier detect appears untrustworthy, waiting 4 seconds Get that fixed and this patch could be useful, Does the driver properly uses netif_carrier_on/off to signal the system when the link is up/down ? Implementing the poll_controller() method in

Re: solution to printk() blocking interrupts?

2008-09-22 Thread Sergei Shtylyov
Hello. Jon Smirl wrote: Does anyone have a solution to the problem of printk() to a serial console blocking interrupts for too long? I'm losing interrupts I need because my hardware is getting overrun. It's a strange piece of hardware that loses interrupts on getting overrun. :-)

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Demultiplexing SIGTRAP signal

2008-09-22 Thread Srinivasa Ds
On Monday 22 September 2008 16:12:02 Ingo Molnar wrote: no fundamental objections - assuming existing x86 apps have not grown an ABI dependency on the existing send_sigtrap() semantics. (Debuggers and JITs would be a candidate for such dependencies.) Assuming that no ABI dependency exist

Re: solution to printk() blocking interrupts?

2008-09-22 Thread Jon Smirl
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:21 AM, Sergei Shtylyov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello. Jon Smirl wrote: Does anyone have a solution to the problem of printk() to a serial console blocking interrupts for too long? I'm losing interrupts I need because my hardware is getting overrun. It's a

MPC5200 PCI interrupt routing

2008-09-22 Thread Juergen Beisert
Hi, my MPC5200 based platform has one PCI slot, with the following interrupt routing: PCI slot MPC5200 INT A IRQ0 INT B IRQ1 INT C IRQ2 INT D IRQ3 In my oftree I'm using these lines to describe this routing (slot's IDSEL is 0x18) [...] [EMAIL PROTECTED] {

Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc: gpio driver for mpc8349/8572/8610 and compatible with OF bindings

2008-09-22 Thread Peter Korsgaard
Anton == Anton Vorontsov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anton On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 08:32:34AM +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote: Structured similar to the existing QE GPIO support. Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] Anton Looks good to me, thanks. Anton Few comments below,

Re: solution to printk() blocking interrupts?

2008-09-22 Thread Sergei Shtylyov
Hello, I wrote: Not sure if Stephen was the right person to CC, including Matt now... What controls this? carrier detect appears untrustworthy, waiting 4 seconds Get that fixed and this patch could be useful, Does the driver properly uses netif_carrier_on/off to signal the system when

Re: solution to printk() blocking interrupts?

2008-09-22 Thread Jon Smirl
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Sergei Shtylyov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello, I wrote: Not sure if Stephen was the right person to CC, including Matt now... What controls this? carrier detect appears untrustworthy, waiting 4 seconds Get that fixed and this patch could be useful, Does

Re: [RFC][PATCH] Demultiplexing SIGTRAP signal

2008-09-22 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Srinivasa Ds [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- linux-2.6.27-rc7.orig/arch/ia64/include/asm/siginfo.h +++ linux-2.6.27-rc7/arch/ia64/include/asm/siginfo.h please do not send patches that modify include/asm/ files, the include/asm-x86/ file should be modified instead. (this problem will go away

Re: solution to printk() blocking interrupts?

2008-09-22 Thread Sergei Shtylyov
Jon Smirl wrote: Not sure if Stephen was the right person to CC, including Matt now... What controls this? carrier detect appears untrustworthy, waiting 4 seconds Get that fixed and this patch could be useful, Does the driver properly uses netif_carrier_on/off to signal the system when

[PATCH v4] powerpc: gpio driver for mpc8349/8572/8610 and compatible

2008-09-22 Thread Peter Korsgaard
Structured similar to the existing QE GPIO support. Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Changes since v3: - Incorporated feedback from Anton Changes since v2: - Clarified documentation as requested by Kumar. Changes since v1: Incorporated feedback from Anton and Kumar:

Re: MPC5200 PCI interrupt routing

2008-09-22 Thread Juergen Beisert
On Montag, 22. September 2008, Juergen Beisert wrote: $ lspci 00:18.0 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82x UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 61) 00:18.1 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82x UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 61) 00:18.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB

[PATCH] PPC: Fix rtas_log_read()

2008-09-22 Thread David Howells
Fix rtas_log_read() to correctly check its buffer after sleeping. A competing process may have swiped the error we're attempting to retrieve between us being woken up and retaking the lock, but we return an event and account for it anyway without checking. Any positive result from checking

Problems with macros LOAD_REG_ADDR and LOAD_REG_IMMEDIATE

2008-09-22 Thread Mitesh R. Meswani
I am having issues using LOAD_REG_ADDR and LOAD_REG_IMMEDIATE macros on a ppc64 kernel which I have tried on both 2.6.16 and 2.6.17 kernels. I noticed that these macros by default loading value 0 instead of the actual address. Is this a bug of the compiler that can be fixed, I noticed when I

[RFC] GPIO-Watchdog in devicetree

2008-09-22 Thread Wolfram Sang
Hello all, I understood that the device-tree is for describing hardware and should not contain driver specific information. I have problems drawing this line right now. I made a driver for watchdogs which are pinged by toggling a gpio. Currently the device-tree entry looks like this:

Re: MPC5200 PCI interrupt routing

2008-09-22 Thread Matt Sealey
Juergen Beisert wrote: Hi, $ lspci 00:18.0 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82x UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 61) 00:18.1 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82x UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 61) 00:18.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB 2.0 (rev 63) USB driver

Re: solution to printk() blocking interrupts?

2008-09-22 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 15:11 +0400, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: Hello, I wrote: What controls this? carrier detect appears untrustworthy, waiting 4 seconds Get that fixed and this patch could be useful, Does the driver properly uses netif_carrier_on/off to signal the system when

[patch 1/1] powerpc: convert CONFIG_PPC_MERGE to CONFIG_PPC for legacy io checks

2008-09-22 Thread akpm
From: Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now that arch/ppc is dead CONFIG_PPC_MERGE is always defined for all powerpc platforms and we want to get rid of CONFIG_PPC_MERGE use CONFIG_PPC instead. Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Paul Mackerras

Re: [patch 1/1] powerpc: convert CONFIG_PPC_MERGE to CONFIG_PPC for legacy io checks

2008-09-22 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 14:41 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Kumar Gala [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now that arch/ppc is dead CONFIG_PPC_MERGE is always defined for all powerpc platforms and we want to get rid of CONFIG_PPC_MERGE use CONFIG_PPC instead. Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala [EMAIL

Merge linuxppc-embedded with linuxppc-dev

2008-09-22 Thread Grant Likely
Jeremy, Can we eliminate the linuxppc-embedded mailing list and merge it with linuxppc-dev? I don't think we need two separate lists anymore and patches to linuxppc-embedded don't always get dealt with. Anyone have any objections to eliminating linuxppc-embedded? g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc.,

Re: Merge linuxppc-embedded with linuxppc-dev

2008-09-22 Thread Grant Likely
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 4:11 PM, Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 18:08, Grant Likely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeremy, Can we eliminate the linuxppc-embedded mailing list and merge it with linuxppc-dev? I don't think we need two separate lists anymore and

IRQ2-4 number to use on mpc83xx?

2008-09-22 Thread Tjernlund
I am trying to figure out what IRQ number I should use for external IRQ pins IRQ2-4. Can somebody please drop me a note on how the IRQ numbering works? Jocke ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org

Re: Merge linuxppc-embedded with linuxppc-dev

2008-09-22 Thread Jeremy Kerr
Hi Grant, Can we eliminate the linuxppc-embedded mailing list and merge it with linuxppc-dev? That's not really up to me - more of a community question I think. I imagine Paul would have the final decision though. Cheers, Jeremy ___ Linuxppc-dev

Re: [i2c] [PATCH 2/2] i2c: MPC8349E-mITX Power Management and GPIO expander driver

2008-09-22 Thread Ben Dooks
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 10:03:54PM +0400, Anton Vorontsov wrote: On MPC8349E-mITX, MPC8315E-RDB and MPC837x-RDB boards there is a Freescale MC9S08QG8 (MCU) chip with the custom firmware pre-programmed. The chip is used to power-off the board by the software, and to control some GPIO pins. I

Re: Merge linuxppc-embedded with linuxppc-dev

2008-09-22 Thread Kumar Gala
On Sep 22, 2008, at 6:09 PM, Jeremy Kerr wrote: Hi Grant, Can we eliminate the linuxppc-embedded mailing list and merge it with linuxppc-dev? That's not really up to me - more of a community question I think. I imagine Paul would have the final decision though. I'm pretty sure I saw paul

RE: [PATCH v2] Add AMCC Arches eval board support to platforms/44x

2008-09-22 Thread Victor Gallardo
Hi Josh, You need to look in the 'next' branch. http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/jwboyer/powerpc-4xx.git;a=tree;f=arch/powerpc/platforms/44x;h=c5cae8d37f170193ed45b7b76e3cb2cbb8be927a;hb=next josh I am not sure how to get your next branch. I usually just use the following command.

Re: Merge linuxppc-embedded with linuxppc-dev

2008-09-22 Thread Wolfram Sang
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 06:34:37PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: Can we eliminate the linuxppc-embedded mailing list and merge it with linuxppc-dev? That's not really up to me - more of a community question I think. I imagine Paul would have the final decision though. I'm pretty sure I saw paul

Re: solution to printk() blocking interrupts?

2008-09-22 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
It's a strange piece of hardware that loses interrupts on getting overrun. :-) The 4 second pause slows down the debug/test cycle a lot. I'm using a net booted monolithic kernel on the hardware and using the reset button every time I make a change. I'm not going to have much feelings

Re: Problems with macros LOAD_REG_ADDR and LOAD_REG_IMMEDIATE

2008-09-22 Thread Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 12:16 -0600, Mitesh R. Meswani wrote: I am having issues using LOAD_REG_ADDR and LOAD_REG_IMMEDIATE macros on a ppc64 kernel which I have tried on both 2.6.16 and 2.6.17 kernels. I noticed that these macros by default loading value 0 instead of the actual address. Is