Re: [PATCH] PM: Hide CONFIG_PM from users

2011-02-08 Thread Paul Mundt
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 12:05:40AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: On Monday, February 07, 2011, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: More of an observation for your (b) justification. I'd probably force CONFIG_PM to always 'y'w while we weeding references to it from drivers... We simply can't force

Re: [PATCH 08/16 v4] pramfs: headers

2010-11-24 Thread Paul Mundt
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:00:15AM +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote: +/* + * Debug code + */ +#define pram_dbg(s, args...) pr_debug(PRAMFS: s, ## args) +#define pram_err(s, args...) pr_err(PRAMFS: s, ## args) +#define pram_warn(s, args...)pr_warning(PRAMFS: s, ## args) +#define

Re: [PATCH 09/16 v4] pramfs: dir operations

2010-11-24 Thread Paul Mundt
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:00:45AM +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote: +int pram_add_link(struct dentry *dentry, struct inode *inode) +{ + struct inode *dir = dentry-d_parent-d_inode; + struct pram_inode *pidir, *pi, *pitail = NULL; + u64 tail_ino, prev_ino; + + const char *name =

Re: [PATCH 04/16 v4] pramfs: file operations

2010-11-24 Thread Paul Mundt
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 09:11:13AM +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote: 2010/11/24 Paul Mundt let...@linux-sh.org: most of this from ext2, I'm curious why you opted to hardcode this instead of maintaining the flexibility that ext2 XIP has over this. First of all because it was simpler

Re: [PATCH 08/16 v4] pramfs: headers

2010-11-24 Thread Paul Mundt
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 09:23:02AM +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote: 2010/11/24 Paul Mundt let...@linux-sh.org: +#ifdef CONFIG_PRAMFS_WRITE_PROTECT +extern void pram_writeable(void *vaddr, unsigned long size, int rw); + +#define wrprotect(addr, size) pram_writeable(addr, size, 0) + +#else

Re: [PATCH 04/16 v4] pramfs: file operations

2010-11-23 Thread Paul Mundt
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 10:58:40AM +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote: diff -Nurp linux-2.6.36-orig/fs/pramfs/file.c linux-2.6.36/fs/pramfs/file.c --- linux-2.6.36-orig/fs/pramfs/file.c1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100 +++ linux-2.6.36/fs/pramfs/file.c 2010-09-24 18:34:03.0

Re: A better way to sequence driver initialization?

2010-04-10 Thread Paul Mundt
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 08:35:41AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: On Fri, 2010-04-09 at 14:23 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: My recent post, Requesting a GPIO that hasn't been registered yet, and Anton's reply thereto (thanks, Anton!) on linuxppc-dev got me

Re: Re: How to store kernel panic/oops

2009-12-28 Thread Paul Mundt
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 07:03:48PM +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote: David Woodhouse wrote: Can't it be done with what's in the tree already? Just create an MTD device using phram or something else, then point mtdoops at it Yes of course, if possible we shouldn't reinvent the wheel but I

Re: New MMC maintainer needed

2009-07-23 Thread Paul Mundt
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:22:59PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:54:47 +0100 Matt Fleming m...@console-pimps.org wrote: On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 01:08:08AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote: Andrew Morton wrote: Until and unless someone else steps up I can act as

Re: Status of bzip2 and lzma kernel compression for ARM?

2009-06-25 Thread Paul Mundt
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 05:24:59PM +0200, Michael Opdenacker wrote: On 06/25/2009 11:04 AM, Florian Fainelli wrote: Le Thursday 25 June 2009 10:56:45 Mike Rapoport, vous avez ?crit : I'm not sure what exactly do you mean by test bzip2 and lzma compression on ARM, but if you refer to

Re: Representing Embedded Architectures at the Kernel Summit

2009-06-18 Thread Paul Mundt
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 09:59:20PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: On Jun 17, 2009, at 9:51 PM, Paul Mundt wrote: On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 09:31:48AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: One topic that was partially touched on was dealing with various memories on embedded systems. We have several sram based

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

2009-06-17 Thread Paul Mundt
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 07:35:24PM -0700, Jared Hulbert wrote: +/* 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; + + ? ? ?

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

2009-06-17 Thread Paul Mundt
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 06:58:00PM +0200, Marco wrote: Jared Hulbert wrote: Why not just fix flush_tlb_range()? If an arch has a flush_tlb_kernel_page() that works then it stands to reason that the flush_tlb_kernel_range() shouldn't work with minimal effort, no?

Re: Representing Embedded Architectures at the Kernel Summit

2009-06-17 Thread Paul Mundt
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 09:42:46AM +0300, 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

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Paul Mundt
On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 09:36:58PM -0600, Mark A. Miller wrote: Actually, something that has amused me during this discussion, is that right now, the latest stable Perl (5.8.8) does not compile correctly on a uclibc host, which is typically what you want for embedded systems, which is why

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Paul Mundt
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 03:18:53AM -0600, Mark A. Miller wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:20 AM, Paul Mundt let...@linux-sh.org wrote: Paul: I initially wrote a rather details response to your e-mail. But instead, I shall quote a previous e-mail of yours: I will repeat again that no one

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Paul Mundt
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 04:03:32AM -0600, Mark A. Miller wrote: On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:41 AM, Paul Mundt let...@linux-sh.org wrote: I will repeat, there has not been a single coherent argument against what makes perl inherently incapable of being supported. You're right, this thread

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-12 Thread Paul Mundt
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:18:03AM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:50:31PM -0600, Mark A. Miller wrote: On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 11:35 PM, Sam Ravnborg s...@ravnborg.org wrote: There are several other packages which are broken for embedded architectures, which I will

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-02 Thread Paul Mundt
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 02:07:28AM -0600, Rob Landley wrote: Before 2.6.25 (specifically git bdc807871d58285737d50dc6163d0feb72cb0dc2 ) building a Linux kernel never required perl to be installed on the build system. (Various development and debugging scripts were written in perl and

Re: PATCH [0/3]: Simplify the kernel build by removing perl.

2009-01-02 Thread Paul Mundt
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 04:32:42AM -0600, Mark Miller wrote: On Jan 2, 2009, at 3:50 AM, Paul Mundt wrote: Misguided rhetoric aside, what does this actually accomplish? If folks add meaningful tools in to the kernel that require python, and it is generally regarded as being fairly ubiquitous

Re: [RFC 0/6] Proposal for a Generic PWM Device API

2008-10-10 Thread Paul Mundt
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 11:00:09AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Bill Gatliff wrote: Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 11:43 -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: This series proposes a generic PWM driver API. This proposed API is motivated by the

Re: [RFC 0/6] Proposal for a Generic PWM Device API

2008-10-10 Thread Paul Mundt
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 09:03:34AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: Paul Mundt wrote: This is likely because some of those lists are subscribers only, so cross posting is poor form. It makes sense to keep the discussion in one place, and to send notification messages with a pointer to the list

Re: [RFC 0/6] Proposal for a Generic PWM Device API

2008-10-10 Thread Paul Mundt
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 08:59:08AM -0500, Bill Gatliff wrote: There isn't a lot of traffic on linux-embedded, and I'm not sure how many people who read linux-arm-kernel also read linuxppc-dev. Lkml's topic coverage is huge, so I don't know how many hardcore embedded developers I would

Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c - bisected

2008-08-27 Thread Paul Mundt
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 02:58:30PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 05:28:37PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Adrian Bunk wrote: When did we get callpaths like like nfs+xfs+md+scsi reliably working with 4kB stacks on x86-32? XFS may never have

Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c - bisected

2008-08-27 Thread Paul Mundt
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 08:35:44PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 01:00:52AM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 02:58:30PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: In addition to that, debugging the runaway stack users on 4k tends to be easier anyways since you end up

Re: [Bug #11342] Linux 2.6.27-rc3: kernel BUG at mm/vmalloc.c - bisected

2008-08-27 Thread Paul Mundt
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 05:46:05PM -0700, David Miller wrote: From: Paul Mundt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:32:13 +0900 On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 08:35:44PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: CONFIG_DEBUG_STACKOVERFLOW should give you the same information, and if wanted

Re: [RFC] Remove more code when IP_MULTICAST=n

2008-08-25 Thread Paul Mundt
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 08:48:25AM +0200, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: Le Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:18:38 +0200 (CEST), Geert Uytterhoeven [EMAIL PROTECTED] a ??crit : On Tue, 19 Aug 2008, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: [RFC] Remove more code when IP_MULTICAST=n Probably you wanted to cc [EMAIL