On 20/12/2018 17:53, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 18:01, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ard,
>>
>> On 14/12/2018 16:40, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 14/12/2018 15:49, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 16:23, Julien Thierry
wrote:
>
> Hi,
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 18:01, Julien Thierry wrote:
>
> Hi Ard,
>
> On 14/12/2018 16:40, Julien Thierry wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 14/12/2018 15:49, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >> On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 16:23, Julien Thierry
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On 13/12/2018 15:03, Julien Thierry
Hi Ard,
On 14/12/2018 16:40, Julien Thierry wrote:
>
>
> On 14/12/2018 15:49, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 16:23, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 13/12/2018 15:03, Julien Thierry wrote:
Argh, not as simple as I had expected.
Turns out
HI Julien,
Thanks a lot for your reply, since I'm working on this patch in ARM
(32 bits), so I have to dig into the details.
Julien Thierry 於 2018年12月17日 週一 下午5:26寫道：
>
> Hi Jian-Lin,
>
> Thanks for looking at this.
>
> On 16/12/2018 14:47, Jian-Lin Chen wrote:
> > From: Jian-Lin Chen
> >
> >
Hi Jian-Lin,
Thanks for looking at this.
On 16/12/2018 14:47, Jian-Lin Chen wrote:
> From: Jian-Lin Chen
>
>
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 17:48, Julien Thierry wrote:
>> static inline void arch_local_irq_enable(void)
>> {
>> - asm volatile(
>> - "msrdaifclr, #2
From: Jian-Lin Chen
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 17:48, Julien Thierry wrote:
> static inline void arch_local_irq_enable(void)
> {
> - asm volatile(
> - "msrdaifclr, #2 // arch_local_irq_enable"
> - :
> + unsigned long unmasked =
On 14/12/2018 15:49, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 16:23, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 13/12/2018 15:03, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>
>>> Argh, not as simple as I had expected.
>>>
>>> Turns out include/linux/efi.h does not include asm/efi.h (including it
>>> at the
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018 at 16:23, Julien Thierry wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 13/12/2018 15:03, Julien Thierry wrote:
> >
> > Argh, not as simple as I had expected.
> >
> > Turns out include/linux/efi.h does not include asm/efi.h (including it
> > at the beginning of the file breaks the build because
Hi,
On 13/12/2018 15:03, Julien Thierry wrote:
>
> Argh, not as simple as I had expected.
>
> Turns out include/linux/efi.h does not include asm/efi.h (including it
> at the beginning of the file breaks the build because asm/efi.h misses
> the efi type definitions.
>
> So a thing like:
>
>
On 13/12/2018 12:02, Julien Thierry wrote:
>
>
> On 13/12/2018 11:35, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 09:54, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2018 18:10, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 18:59, Julien Thierry
wrote:
>
>
>
On 13/12/2018 11:35, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 09:54, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/12/2018 18:10, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 18:59, Julien Thierry wrote:
On 12/12/2018 17:27, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 09:54, Julien Thierry wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/12/2018 18:10, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 18:59, Julien Thierry wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 12/12/2018 17:27, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 17:48, Julien Thierry
> >>> wrote:
>
>
On 12/12/2018 18:10, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 18:59, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 12/12/2018 17:27, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 17:48, Julien Thierry wrote:
Instead disabling interrupts by setting the PSR.I bit, use a priority
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 18:59, Julien Thierry wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/12/2018 17:27, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 17:48, Julien Thierry wrote:
> >>
> >> Instead disabling interrupts by setting the PSR.I bit, use a priority
> >> higher than the one used for interrupts to mask them
On 12/12/2018 17:27, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 17:48, Julien Thierry wrote:
>>
>> Instead disabling interrupts by setting the PSR.I bit, use a priority
>> higher than the one used for interrupts to mask them via PMR.
>>
>> When using PMR to disable interrupts, the value of
On Wed, 12 Dec 2018 at 17:48, Julien Thierry wrote:
>
> Instead disabling interrupts by setting the PSR.I bit, use a priority
> higher than the one used for interrupts to mask them via PMR.
>
> When using PMR to disable interrupts, the value of PMR will be used
> instead of PSR.[DAIF] for the
Instead disabling interrupts by setting the PSR.I bit, use a priority
higher than the one used for interrupts to mask them via PMR.
When using PMR to disable interrupts, the value of PMR will be used
instead of PSR.[DAIF] for the irqflags.
Signed-off-by: Julien Thierry
Suggested-by: Daniel
17 matches
Mail list logo
