Hi Russell,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 04:47:06PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> Picking up this thread again, as things are now set for dropping this
> patch and resubmitting SMP support for 3.18.
Any further comment on this? I'd like to submit v10 of this patch soon.
As of now, my patch will still
Hi Russell,
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 04:47:06PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
Picking up this thread again, as things are now set for dropping this
patch and resubmitting SMP support for 3.18.
Any further comment on this? I'd like to submit v10 of this patch soon.
As of now, my patch will still
Hi Russell,
Picking up this thread again, as things are now set for dropping this
patch and resubmitting SMP support for 3.18.
On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 10:27:56AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 03:06:42PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > Yes, I noticed this. What I meant is
Hi Russell,
Picking up this thread again, as things are now set for dropping this
patch and resubmitting SMP support for 3.18.
On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 10:27:56AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 03:06:42PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
Yes, I noticed this. What I meant is that
On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> Here's some more comments on this.
>
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 02:07:56PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > +static void brcmstb_cpu_die(u32 cpu)
> > +{
> > + v7_exit_coherency_flush(all);
>
> This is ultimately what causes my builds
On Sat, Aug 02, 2014 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
Here's some more comments on this.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 02:07:56PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
+static void brcmstb_cpu_die(u32 cpu)
+{
+ v7_exit_coherency_flush(all);
This is ultimately what causes my builds to break:
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 03:06:42PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> Yes, I noticed this. What I meant is that smp_ops.cpu_die() and
> smp_ops.cpu_kill() are not synchronized.
...
> We're not relying on the L1 cache, though. Don't sync_cache_{r,w}()
> ensure all reads/writes reach at
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 09:33:44AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Brian Norris
> wrote:
> > Like what?
>
> Errata work-arounds, performance bits, etc. I don't recall exactly
> which ones are per core vs. global. I assume this is an A9, but cores
> with virt
Here's some more comments on this.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 02:07:56PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> +static void brcmstb_cpu_die(u32 cpu)
> +{
> + v7_exit_coherency_flush(all);
This is ultimately what causes my builds to break:
/tmp/ccSPowmq.s:171: Error: selected processor does not support
Here's some more comments on this.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 02:07:56PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
+static void brcmstb_cpu_die(u32 cpu)
+{
+ v7_exit_coherency_flush(all);
This is ultimately what causes my builds to break:
/tmp/ccSPowmq.s:171: Error: selected processor does not support ARM
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 09:33:44AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Brian Norris
computersforpe...@gmail.com wrote:
Like what?
Errata work-arounds, performance bits, etc. I don't recall exactly
which ones are per core vs. global. I assume this is an A9, but cores
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 03:06:42PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
Hi Russell,
Yes, I noticed this. What I meant is that smp_ops.cpu_die() and
smp_ops.cpu_kill() are not synchronized.
...
We're not relying on the L1 cache, though. Don't sync_cache_{r,w}()
ensure all reads/writes reach at least
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 12:29:11PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2014-08-01 7:33 GMT-07:00 Rob Herring :
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Brian Norris
> > wrote:
> >> Hi Rob,
> >>
> >> I appreciate your comments, but where were many of these 5 months ago on
> >> the first 7
Hello,
2014-08-01 7:33 GMT-07:00 Rob Herring :
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Brian Norris
> wrote:
>> Hi Rob,
>>
>> I appreciate your comments, but where were many of these 5 months ago on
>> the first 7 revisions? :)
>
> Sorry, but that is the nature of upstreaming. But given some of the
>
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Brian Norris
wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> I appreciate your comments, but where were many of these 5 months ago on
> the first 7 revisions? :)
Sorry, but that is the nature of upstreaming. But given some of the
issues, it is obvious the reviews were not sufficient.
> On
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Brian Norris
computersforpe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rob,
I appreciate your comments, but where were many of these 5 months ago on
the first 7 revisions? :)
Sorry, but that is the nature of upstreaming. But given some of the
issues, it is obvious the reviews
Hello,
2014-08-01 7:33 GMT-07:00 Rob Herring robherri...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Brian Norris
computersforpe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rob,
I appreciate your comments, but where were many of these 5 months ago on
the first 7 revisions? :)
Sorry, but that is the nature of
On Fri, Aug 01, 2014 at 12:29:11PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote:
Hello,
2014-08-01 7:33 GMT-07:00 Rob Herring robherri...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Brian Norris
computersforpe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Rob,
I appreciate your comments, but where were many of these 5
Hi Russell,
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 09:43:15AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 07:23:20PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > I appreciate your comments, but where were many of these 5 months ago on
> > the first 7 revisions? :)
> >
> > On a practical note: v9 is already queued
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 07:23:20PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> I appreciate your comments, but where were many of these 5 months ago on
> the first 7 revisions? :)
>
> On a practical note: v9 is already queued for 3.17. Should I send
> patches for the 3.17 cycle (or later) to fixup
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 07:23:20PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
Hi Rob,
I appreciate your comments, but where were many of these 5 months ago on
the first 7 revisions? :)
On a practical note: v9 is already queued for 3.17. Should I send
patches for the 3.17 cycle (or later) to fixup some of
Hi Russell,
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 09:43:15AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 07:23:20PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
I appreciate your comments, but where were many of these 5 months ago on
the first 7 revisions? :)
On a practical note: v9 is already queued for 3.17.
Hi Russell,
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:26:35AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 02:07:56PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(boot_lock);
> > +
> > +static void brcmstb_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > +* Synchronise with the boot
Hi Rob,
I appreciate your comments, but where were many of these 5 months ago on
the first 7 revisions? :)
On a practical note: v9 is already queued for 3.17. Should I send
patches for the 3.17 cycle (or later) to fixup some of these issues? Or
would you recommend pulling the patches out of Matt
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Brian Norris
wrote:
> From: Marc Carino
>
> The BCM7xxx series of Broadcom SoCs are used primarily in set-top boxes.
>
> This patch adds machine support for the ARM-based Broadcom SoCs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Carino
> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris
> ---
>
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 02:07:56PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(boot_lock);
> +
> +static void brcmstb_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Synchronise with the boot thread.
> + */
> + spin_lock(_lock);
> + spin_unlock(_lock);
> +}
> +
>
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 02:07:56PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(boot_lock);
+
+static void brcmstb_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+ /*
+ * Synchronise with the boot thread.
+ */
+ spin_lock(boot_lock);
+ spin_unlock(boot_lock);
+}
+
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Brian Norris
computersforpe...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Marc Carino marc.cee...@gmail.com
The BCM7xxx series of Broadcom SoCs are used primarily in set-top boxes.
This patch adds machine support for the ARM-based Broadcom SoCs.
Signed-off-by: Marc Carino
Hi Rob,
I appreciate your comments, but where were many of these 5 months ago on
the first 7 revisions? :)
On a practical note: v9 is already queued for 3.17. Should I send
patches for the 3.17 cycle (or later) to fixup some of these issues? Or
would you recommend pulling the patches out of Matt
Hi Russell,
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:26:35AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 02:07:56PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
+static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(boot_lock);
+
+static void brcmstb_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+ /*
+* Synchronise with the boot thread.
+
From: Marc Carino
The BCM7xxx series of Broadcom SoCs are used primarily in set-top boxes.
This patch adds machine support for the ARM-based Broadcom SoCs.
Signed-off-by: Marc Carino
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris
---
arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig | 1 +
arch/arm/mach-bcm/Kconfig
From: Marc Carino marc.cee...@gmail.com
The BCM7xxx series of Broadcom SoCs are used primarily in set-top boxes.
This patch adds machine support for the ARM-based Broadcom SoCs.
Signed-off-by: Marc Carino marc.cee...@gmail.com
Signed-off-by: Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com
---
32 matches
Mail list logo
