Re: Representing Embedded Architectures at the Kernel Summit

2009-06-16 Thread Mike Rapoport
James Bottomley wrote: Hi All, We've got to the point where there are simply too many embedded architectures to invite all the arch maintainers to the kernel summit. So, this year, we thought we'd do embedded via topic driven invitations instead. So what we're looking for is a proposal

Re: Representing Embedded Architectures at the Kernel Summit

2009-06-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 02:42, Mike Rapoport wrote: James Bottomley wrote: We've got to the point where there are simply too many embedded architectures to invite all the arch maintainers to the kernel summit. So, this year, we thought we'd do embedded via topic driven invitations instead.  

Re: [Ksummit-2009-discuss] Representing Embedded Architectures at the Kernel Summit

2009-06-16 Thread Ralf Baechle
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 04:06:48AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 02:42, Mike Rapoport wrote: James Bottomley wrote: We've got to the point where there are simply too many embedded architectures to invite all the arch maintainers to the kernel summit. So, this year,

Re: [PATCH 00/14] Pramfs: Persistent and protected ram filesystem

2009-06-16 Thread Jamie Lokier
Marco wrote: There's the checksum, but the most important feature of this fs is the write protection. The page table entries that map the backing-store RAM are normally marked read-only. Write operations into the filesystem temporarily mark the affected pages as writeable, the write operation

Re: Representing Embedded Architectures at the Kernel Summit

2009-06-16 Thread Grant Likely
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:06 AM, Mike Frysingervapier@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 02:42, Mike Rapoport wrote: James Bottomley wrote: Another issue that affects embedded architectures is drivers initialization order. There are a lot of cases when you need the drivers to be

Re: Representing Embedded Architectures at the Kernel Summit

2009-06-16 Thread Jamie Lokier
Grant Likely wrote: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/24152/ I never actually pushed through and finished it because it turned out to be a non-issue for Ethernet devices in the end. However, I can see the value. With this approach, a driver can use a bus_register_notifier() variant

Re: [PATCH 00/14] Pramfs: Persistent and protected ram filesystem

2009-06-16 Thread Marco
Jamie Lokier wrote: Marco wrote: There's the checksum, but the most important feature of this fs is the write protection. The page table entries that map the backing-store RAM are normally marked read-only. Write operations into the filesystem temporarily mark the affected pages as writeable,

Re: Representing Embedded Architectures at the Kernel Summit

2009-06-16 Thread Grant Likely
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Jamie Lokierja...@shareable.org wrote: Grant Likely wrote: http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/24152/ I never actually pushed through and finished it because it turned out to be a non-issue for Ethernet devices in the end.  However, I can see the value.  With

Re: Representing Embedded Architectures at the Kernel Summit

2009-06-16 Thread Jamie Lokier
Grant Likely wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Jamie Lokierja...@shareable.org wrote: Something which lets you specify a dependency in a one-line MODULE_INIT_PREREQS() macro would be much nicer. That would work for some cases, but a lot of cases the problem is not module init

Re: Representing Embedded Architectures at the Kernel Summit

2009-06-16 Thread Grant Likely
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Jamie Lokierja...@shareable.org wrote: Grant Likely wrote: On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Jamie Lokierja...@shareable.org wrote: Something which lets you specify a dependency in a one-line MODULE_INIT_PREREQS() macro would be much nicer. That would work

Re: [PATCH 14/14] Pramfs: XIP operations

2009-06-16 Thread Jared Hulbert
I know. It wasn't my intention to introduce it but as I said in my first patch I've done a porting of this code from 2.6.10 and to remove it I need time to analyze well the code to avoid deadlock and so on. If someone would like to help me I'd really appreciate it. However I see the use of

Re: [PATCH 13/14] Pramfs: Write protection

2009-06-16 Thread Jared Hulbert
+/* init_mm.page_table_lock must be held before calling! */ +static void pram_page_writeable(unsigned long addr, int rw) +{ +       pgd_t *pgdp; +       pud_t *pudp; +       pmd_t *pmdp; +       pte_t *ptep; + +       pgdp = pgd_offset_k(addr); +       if (!pgd_none(*pgdp)) { +          

Re: [Ksummit-2009-discuss] Representing Embedded Architectures at the Kernel Summit

2009-06-16 Thread H. Peter Anvin
Ralf Baechle wrote: I2C or similar busses can be a particularly annoying if they contain essential configuration information such as memory size which is needed long before anything else. So for far a common solution is that platforms are carrying a private (aka redundant, ugly) early-i2c