On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20 2015 at 4:52:59 pm GMT, Liviu Dudau
> wrote:
> > During a recent cleanup of the arm64 DTs it has become clear that
> > the handling of PPIs in _set_type() is incorrect. The ARM TRMs
> > for GICv2 and later allow for "implementation
On Thu, 22 Jan 2015, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20 2015 at 4:52:59 pm GMT, Liviu Dudau liviu.du...@arm.com
wrote:
During a recent cleanup of the arm64 DTs it has become clear that
the handling of PPIs in _set_type() is incorrect. The ARM TRMs
for GICv2 and later allow for
On Tue, Jan 20 2015 at 4:52:59 pm GMT, Liviu Dudau wrote:
> During a recent cleanup of the arm64 DTs it has become clear that
> the handling of PPIs in _set_type() is incorrect. The ARM TRMs
> for GICv2 and later allow for "implementation defined" support for
> setting the edge or level type
On Tue, Jan 20 2015 at 4:52:59 pm GMT, Liviu Dudau liviu.du...@arm.com wrote:
During a recent cleanup of the arm64 DTs it has become clear that
the handling of PPIs in _set_type() is incorrect. The ARM TRMs
for GICv2 and later allow for implementation defined support for
setting the edge
During a recent cleanup of the arm64 DTs it has become clear that
the handling of PPIs in _set_type() is incorrect. The ARM TRMs
for GICv2 and later allow for "implementation defined" support for
setting the edge or level type of the PPI interrupts and don't restrict
the activation level of
During a recent cleanup of the arm64 DTs it has become clear that
the handling of PPIs in _set_type() is incorrect. The ARM TRMs
for GICv2 and later allow for implementation defined support for
setting the edge or level type of the PPI interrupts and don't restrict
the activation level of the
6 matches
Mail list logo
