On Tue, 2008-11-11 at 08:19 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:23:28PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Christian Ehrhardt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ilya,
I just tried your patch on my 440 board because it would help us in our
environment.
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:23:28PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Christian Ehrhardt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ilya,
I just tried your patch on my 440 board because it would help us in our
environment.
Unfortunately I run into a bug on early boot
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 15:00 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:55:21 -0600
Hollis Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 11:43 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Cropping the size of the memory node. That was simplest to do from the
cuboot wrapper at
On Wed, Nov 05, 2008 at 11:33:28AM -0600, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 15:00 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:55:21 -0600
Hollis Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 11:43 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Cropping the size of
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:43:54 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cropping the size of the memory node. That was simplest to do from the
cuboot wrapper at the time. If marking it reserved via a reserve map
is more elegant and correct, we could do that.
But I will
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 11:43 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Cropping the size of the memory node. That was simplest to do from the
cuboot wrapper at the time. If marking it reserved via a reserve map
is more elegant and correct, we could do that.
But I will still like to know
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 13:55:21 -0600
Hollis Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 11:43 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Cropping the size of the memory node. That was simplest to do from the
cuboot wrapper at the time. If marking it reserved via a reserve map
is
On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 06:26 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:43:54 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cropping the size of the memory node. That was simplest to do from the
cuboot wrapper at the time. If marking it reserved via a reserve map
is
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 08:55:02AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 07:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
That is on purpose. The chip has an errata that causes badness if
you use the last XX bytes of DRAM. I forget exactly what XX is, but
we just remove the last page.
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 08:41 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 08:55:02AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 07:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
That is on purpose. The chip has an errata that causes badness if
you use the last XX bytes of DRAM. I forget
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 08:33:16 +1100
Benjamin Herrenschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 08:41 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 08:55:02AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 07:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
That is on purpose. The
Cropping the size of the memory node. That was simplest to do from the
cuboot wrapper at the time. If marking it reserved via a reserve map
is more elegant and correct, we could do that.
But I will still like to know what about the other way is hairy please.
I don't like it :-) Bad
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 06:23:28PM -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Christian Ehrhardt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ilya,
I just tried your patch on my 440 board because it would help us in our
environment.
Unfortunately I run into a bug on early boot
On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 07:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
That is on purpose. The chip has an errata that causes badness if
you use the last XX bytes of DRAM. I forget exactly what XX is, but
we just remove the last page.
Doing that from the device-tree is very hairy tho... you end up with
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 9:28 AM, Christian Ehrhardt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ilya,
I just tried your patch on my 440 board because it would help us in our
environment.
Unfortunately I run into a bug on early boot (mark_bootmem).
A log can be found in this mail, this is the bug when
Hi Ilya,
I just tried your patch on my 440 board because it would help us in our
environment.
Unfortunately I run into a bug on early boot (mark_bootmem).
A log can be found in this mail, this is the bug when running with 64k
page size.
I tried this with and without your 2/2 265k patch and
Ilya, here the snippet you asked for with CONFIG_DEBUG_BUGVERBOSE
enabled and bootmem_debug set.
## Booting kernel from Legacy Image at 0400 ...
Image Name: Linux-2.6.27-dirty
Image Type: PowerPC Linux Kernel Image (gzip compressed)
Data Size:1521505 Bytes = 1.5 MB
Load
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 08:54:52 -0700
prodyut hazarika [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Ilya Yanok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch adds support for page sizes bigger than 4K (16K/64K) on
PPC 44x.
This patch looks good to me. Seems that all the review comments
It helps if you CC the person you're writing too :).
Thanks Josh for pointing this out :-) I will be careful in future.
Anyway, I looked over it briefly and agree it looks pretty good. A bit
late for 2.6.28, but I'll do a more thorough review and get it in for
2.6.29.
Great. Look forward to
On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 7:22 PM, Ilya Yanok [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This patch adds support for page sizes bigger than 4K (16K/64K) on
PPC 44x.
This patch looks good to me. Seems that all the review comments have
been incorporated.
Josh, it would be great if this patch is pulled into the
This patch adds support for page sizes bigger than 4K (16K/64K) on
PPC 44x.
Signed-off-by: Yuri Tikhonov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Vladimir Panfilov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Ilya Yanok [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
arch/powerpc/Kconfig | 26 --
21 matches
Mail list logo
