On 01/11/2016 11:19, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 29 October 2016 at 22:10, Alexander Graf wrote:
This patch updates the Linux headers to include the in-progress user
space ARM timer patches. It is explicitly RFC, as the patches are not
merged yet.
---
Is there a cover letter
In our VGIC implementation we limit the number of SPIs to a number
that the userland application told us. Accordingly we limit the
allocation of memory for virtual IRQs to that number.
However in our MMIO dispatcher we didn't check if we ever access an
IRQ beyond that limit, leading to
On Tue, Nov 01 2016 at 02:54:11 PM, Peter Maydell
wrote:
> On 1 November 2016 at 14:50, Christoffer Dall
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:26:54AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> Possible current and future outbound interrupt lines
Hej,
On 01/11/16 15:28, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 12:19:01PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> Using non-constant number of bits for VGIC_ADDR_TO_INTID() leads
>> to gcc 6.1 emiting calls to __aeabi_uldivmod, which the kernel
>> does not implement.
>>
>> As we really don't
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:54:11PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 1 November 2016 at 14:50, Christoffer Dall
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 11:26:54AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> Possible current and future outbound interrupt lines (some of these
> >>
On 27 September 2016 at 20:08, Christoffer Dall
wrote:
> From: Alexander Graf
>
> We have 2 modes for dealing with interrupts in the ARM world. We can
> either handle them all using hardware acceleration through the vgic or
> we can emulate a gic in
On 29 October 2016 at 22:10, Alexander Graf wrote:
> This patch updates the Linux headers to include the in-progress user
> space ARM timer patches. It is explicitly RFC, as the patches are not
> merged yet.
> ---
Is there a cover letter email for this series ?
thanks
-- PMM
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 04:36:33PM -0600, Baicar, Tyler wrote:
> Hello Russell,
>
> On 10/31/2016 4:02 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> >The subject line on this patch is misleading - it's not only ARM64
> >specific...
> Thank you for the feedback!
>
> I only put ARM64 in the subject line