Here are a few small fixes to get r300 going on ia64. Thanks to Stephane for
pointing out the resource size mismatch. The patch just fixes that (PCI
resources in Linux are 'unsigned long' at the moment, not 'unsigned int') and
adds the checking for write combining regions I posted earlier
On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 10:47 am, Jesse Barnes wrote:
Here are a few small fixes to get r300 going on ia64. Thanks to Stephane
for pointing out the resource size mismatch. The patch just fixes that
(PCI resources in Linux are 'unsigned long' at the moment, not 'unsigned
int') and adds the
On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 10:47 am, Jesse Barnes wrote:
Here are a few small fixes to get r300 going on ia64. Thanks to Stephane
for pointing out the resource size mismatch. The patch just fixes that
(PCI resources in Linux are 'unsigned long' at the moment, not 'unsigned
int') and adds the
On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 11:04 am, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 10:47 am, Jesse Barnes wrote:
Here are a few small fixes to get r300 going on ia64. Thanks to Stephane
for pointing out the resource size mismatch. The patch just fixes that
(PCI resources in Linux are
On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 12:24 pm, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 11:04 am, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Tuesday, March 8, 2005 10:47 am, Jesse Barnes wrote:
Here are a few small fixes to get r300 going on ia64. Thanks to
Stephane for pointing out the resource size mismatch.
Jesse Barnes writes:
Anyone have a preference on this stuff? Should we remove the checks
altogether or just the ones against the highmem variable? If we did the
latter, we could remove the #ifdefs altogether, though I'm not sure how
useful that check is--seems like we'd run into trouble
On Tuesday, March 08, 2005 4:24 pm, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Jesse Barnes writes:
Anyone have a preference on this stuff? Should we remove the checks
altogether or just the ones against the highmem variable? If we did the
latter, we could remove the #ifdefs altogether, though I'm not sure
