On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:10:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > The attached patch rearranges the code so that the handler is
> > > installed before we setup the interrupt (so we have somebody to
> > > listen to the immediate interrupt), and
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 09:36:46AM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > Why not just ajust the constant in MFGPT_HZ since it's the only place (aside
> > the comments) where this is referenced ?
> >
> > If you want I can send you a patch and adjust the comments at the same time.
>
> That would be
On 22/01/08 22:15 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 02:08:58PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > On 22/01/08 21:15 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > > So it seems like applying the workaround on top of TinyBIOS 0.98 undoes
> > > this BIOS's workaround. I'm now wondering how we
On 22/01/08 22:15 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 02:08:58PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
On 22/01/08 21:15 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
So it seems like applying the workaround on top of TinyBIOS 0.98 undoes
this BIOS's workaround. I'm now wondering how we could detect
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 09:36:46AM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
Why not just ajust the constant in MFGPT_HZ since it's the only place (aside
the comments) where this is referenced ?
If you want I can send you a patch and adjust the comments at the same time.
That would be great.
OK
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:10:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The attached patch rearranges the code so that the handler is
installed before we setup the interrupt (so we have somebody to
listen to the immediate interrupt), and it makes sure
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > The attached patch rearranges the code so that the handler is
> > > installed before we setup the interrupt (so we have somebody to
> > > listen to the immediate interrupt), and it makes sure that we
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:10:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > The attached patch rearranges the code so that the handler is
> > > installed before we setup the interrupt (so we have somebody to
> > > listen to the immediate interrupt), and
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 02:08:58PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> On 22/01/08 21:15 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> > So it seems like applying the workaround on top of TinyBIOS 0.98 undoes
> > this BIOS's workaround. I'm now wondering how we could detect whether
> > the workaround was applied or not
On 22/01/08 21:15 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> Good news! I read the mfgpt patch for 2.6.22 and saw what the workaround
> consisted in (writing 0xff at MSR 0x5140002B). So I tried adding the
> following on top of 2.6.24-rc8 :
>
> static int __init mfgpt_fix(char *s)
> {
> u32 val, dummy;
>
* Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The attached patch rearranges the code so that the handler is
> > installed before we setup the interrupt (so we have somebody to
> > listen to the immediate interrupt), and it makes sure that we clear
> > the event in the IRQ handler regardless
Hi,
Jordan Crouse schrieb:
>> Indeed.
>> Strange, it works at least with mfgpt_irq=8 (rtc) and mfgpt_irq=5 (audio):
>
> I have most excellent news. I was able to get tinyBIOS booting on my
> development platform. I looked at the problem with the debugger and
> I think I might have found
Hi guys,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 12:32:26AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> [ 44.013100] NET: Registered protocol family 16
>
> [ 44.066308] geode-mfgpt: IRQ MSR=0:0
>
> [ 44.110161] geode-mfgpt: NMI MSR=0:0
> Indeed.
> Strange, it works at least with mfgpt_irq=8 (rtc) and mfgpt_irq=5 (audio):
I have most excellent news. I was able to get tinyBIOS booting on my
development platform. I looked at the problem with the debugger and
I think I might have found something. It looks like the interrupt is
On 22/01/08 12:18 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
> Lars Heete schrieb:
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Tuesday 22 January 2008 10:03:08 am Arnd Hannemann wrote:
> >> Jordan Crouse wrote:
> >>> Okay - I've been exploring a little bit more. I talked to the TinyBIOS
> >>> developer, and he
Hi Lars,
Lars Heete schrieb:
> Hello,
>
> On Tuesday 22 January 2008 10:03:08 am Arnd Hannemann wrote:
>> Jordan Crouse wrote:
>>> Okay - I've been exploring a little bit more. I talked to the TinyBIOS
>>> developer, and he verified that TinyBIOS shouldn't use any MFGPT timers.
>>> He also told
Hello,
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 10:03:08 am Arnd Hannemann wrote:
> Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > Okay - I've been exploring a little bit more. I talked to the TinyBIOS
> > developer, and he verified that TinyBIOS shouldn't use any MFGPT timers.
> > He also told me that the mysterious "MFGPT
Jordan Crouse wrote:
> Okay - I've been exploring a little bit more. I talked to the TinyBIOS
> developer, and he verified that TinyBIOS shouldn't use any MFGPT timers.
> He also told me that the mysterious "MFGPT workaround" was in fact the
> magic MFGPT erasing MSR that was in the old kernel
Jordan Crouse wrote:
Okay - I've been exploring a little bit more. I talked to the TinyBIOS
developer, and he verified that TinyBIOS shouldn't use any MFGPT timers.
He also told me that the mysterious MFGPT workaround was in fact the
magic MFGPT erasing MSR that was in the old kernel driver.
Hello,
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 10:03:08 am Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Jordan Crouse wrote:
Okay - I've been exploring a little bit more. I talked to the TinyBIOS
developer, and he verified that TinyBIOS shouldn't use any MFGPT timers.
He also told me that the mysterious MFGPT workaround was
Hi Lars,
Lars Heete schrieb:
Hello,
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 10:03:08 am Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Jordan Crouse wrote:
Okay - I've been exploring a little bit more. I talked to the TinyBIOS
developer, and he verified that TinyBIOS shouldn't use any MFGPT timers.
He also told me that the
On 22/01/08 12:18 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Hi Lars,
Lars Heete schrieb:
Hello,
On Tuesday 22 January 2008 10:03:08 am Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Jordan Crouse wrote:
Okay - I've been exploring a little bit more. I talked to the TinyBIOS
developer, and he verified that TinyBIOS
Indeed.
Strange, it works at least with mfgpt_irq=8 (rtc) and mfgpt_irq=5 (audio):
I have most excellent news. I was able to get tinyBIOS booting on my
development platform. I looked at the problem with the debugger and
I think I might have found something. It looks like the interrupt is
Hi guys,
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 12:32:26AM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
[ 44.013100] NET: Registered protocol family 16
[ 44.066308] geode-mfgpt: IRQ MSR=0:0
[ 44.110161] geode-mfgpt: NMI MSR=0:0
Hi,
Jordan Crouse schrieb:
Indeed.
Strange, it works at least with mfgpt_irq=8 (rtc) and mfgpt_irq=5 (audio):
I have most excellent news. I was able to get tinyBIOS booting on my
development platform. I looked at the problem with the debugger and
I think I might have found something. It
On 22/01/08 21:15 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
Good news! I read the mfgpt patch for 2.6.22 and saw what the workaround
consisted in (writing 0xff at MSR 0x5140002B). So I tried adding the
following on top of 2.6.24-rc8 :
static int __init mfgpt_fix(char *s)
{
u32 val, dummy;
* Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The attached patch rearranges the code so that the handler is
installed before we setup the interrupt (so we have somebody to
listen to the immediate interrupt), and it makes sure that we clear
the event in the IRQ handler regardless of the
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 02:08:58PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
On 22/01/08 21:15 +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
So it seems like applying the workaround on top of TinyBIOS 0.98 undoes
this BIOS's workaround. I'm now wondering how we could detect whether
the workaround was applied or not :-/
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 10:10:14PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The attached patch rearranges the code so that the handler is
installed before we setup the interrupt (so we have somebody to
listen to the immediate interrupt), and it makes sure
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The attached patch rearranges the code so that the handler is
installed before we setup the interrupt (so we have somebody to
listen to the immediate interrupt), and it makes sure that we clear
the
Hi Jordan,
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 04:27:09PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> Okay - I've been exploring a little bit more. I talked to the TinyBIOS
> developer, and he verified that TinyBIOS shouldn't use any MFGPT timers.
> He also told me that the mysterious "MFGPT workaround" was in fact the
Okay - I've been exploring a little bit more. I talked to the TinyBIOS
developer, and he verified that TinyBIOS shouldn't use any MFGPT timers.
He also told me that the mysterious "MFGPT workaround" was in fact the
magic MFGPT erasing MSR that was in the old kernel driver.
So with the "MFGPT
Okay - I've been exploring a little bit more. I talked to the TinyBIOS
developer, and he verified that TinyBIOS shouldn't use any MFGPT timers.
He also told me that the mysterious MFGPT workaround was in fact the
magic MFGPT erasing MSR that was in the old kernel driver.
So with the MFGPT
Hi Jordan,
On Mon, Jan 21, 2008 at 04:27:09PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
Okay - I've been exploring a little bit more. I talked to the TinyBIOS
developer, and he verified that TinyBIOS shouldn't use any MFGPT timers.
He also told me that the mysterious MFGPT workaround was in fact the
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 06:06:24PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> As promised, a watchdog driver for the Geode GX/LX processors is attached.
> I basically just ported the previous patch forward to 2.6.24.
>
> I also have good news or bad news depending on your perspective. I wanted
> to test this
On 20/01/08 14:22 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jordan Crouse wrote:
> > On 17/01/08 23:52 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
> Watchdog for the new API would be great :-)
> >>> Coming soon.
> >
> > As promised, a watchdog driver for the Geode GX/LX processors is attached.
> > I
Hi,
Jordan Crouse wrote:
> On 17/01/08 23:52 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Watchdog for the new API would be great :-)
>>> Coming soon.
>
> As promised, a watchdog driver for the Geode GX/LX processors is attached.
> I basically just ported the previous patch forward to 2.6.24.
Great work!
Hi,
Jordan Crouse wrote:
On 17/01/08 23:52 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Watchdog for the new API would be great :-)
Coming soon.
As promised, a watchdog driver for the Geode GX/LX processors is attached.
I basically just ported the previous patch forward to 2.6.24.
Great work!
I also
On 20/01/08 14:22 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Hi,
Jordan Crouse wrote:
On 17/01/08 23:52 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Watchdog for the new API would be great :-)
Coming soon.
As promised, a watchdog driver for the Geode GX/LX processors is attached.
I basically just ported the
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 06:06:24PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
As promised, a watchdog driver for the Geode GX/LX processors is attached.
I basically just ported the previous patch forward to 2.6.24.
I also have good news or bad news depending on your perspective. I wanted
to test this
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 06:06:24PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
> I don't know how much of a hassle it would be for Andres to get a 2.6.24
> kernel running on the OLPC to make sure that this isn't a regression
> in the timer tick code (I suspect it isn't a regression, but you never
> know). I also
On 17/01/08 23:52 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
> >> Watchdog for the new API would be great :-)
> >
> > Coming soon.
As promised, a watchdog driver for the Geode GX/LX processors is attached.
I basically just ported the previous patch forward to 2.6.24.
I also have good news or bad news
On 17/01/08 23:52 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Watchdog for the new API would be great :-)
Coming soon.
As promised, a watchdog driver for the Geode GX/LX processors is attached.
I basically just ported the previous patch forward to 2.6.24.
I also have good news or bad news depending on
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 06:06:24PM -0700, Jordan Crouse wrote:
I don't know how much of a hassle it would be for Andres to get a 2.6.24
kernel running on the OLPC to make sure that this isn't a regression
in the timer tick code (I suspect it isn't a regression, but you never
know). I also
On 18/01/08 00:39 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
> Jordan Crouse schrieb:
> > On 17/01/08 23:52 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>> Hmmm - not sure whats happening here. I wonder if we're stuck in an
> >>> interrupt storm of some sort as soon as you register the interrupt
> >>>
Jordan Crouse schrieb:
> On 17/01/08 23:52 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
>
>
>
>>> Hmmm - not sure whats happening here. I wonder if we're stuck in an
>>> interrupt storm of some sort as soon as you register the interrupt handler.
>>> But I would think that whatever was causing the interrupt
On 17/01/08 23:52 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
> > Hmmm - not sure whats happening here. I wonder if we're stuck in an
> > interrupt storm of some sort as soon as you register the interrupt handler.
> > But I would think that whatever was causing the interrupt storm would be
> > running well
Jordan Crouse wrote:
> On 17/01/08 22:50 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
>> Jordan Crouse schrieb:
>>> On 17/01/08 20:53 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Andres Salomon schrieb:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:54:30 +0100
> Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Andres Salomon
On 17/01/08 22:50 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
> Jordan Crouse schrieb:
> > On 17/01/08 20:53 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
> >> Andres Salomon schrieb:
> >>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:54:30 +0100
> >>> Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> Andres Salomon schrieb:
> > On Wed, 16
Jordan Crouse schrieb:
> On 17/01/08 20:53 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
>> Andres Salomon schrieb:
>>> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:54:30 +0100
>>> Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Andres Salomon schrieb:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0500
> Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 17/01/08 20:53 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
> Andres Salomon schrieb:
> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:54:30 +0100
> > Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Andres Salomon schrieb:
> >>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0500
> >>> Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> On
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:53:57 +0100
Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andres Salomon schrieb:
> > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:54:30 +0100
> > Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Andres Salomon schrieb:
> >>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0500
> >>> Andres Salomon <[EMAIL
Andres Salomon schrieb:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:54:30 +0100
> Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Andres Salomon schrieb:
>>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0500
>>> Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:44:07 +0100
Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:54:30 +0100
Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andres Salomon schrieb:
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0500
> > Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:44:07 +0100
> >> Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
>
Andres Salomon schrieb:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0500
> Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:44:07 +0100
>> Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm trying to boot 2.6.24-rc8 on a GEODE LX board (ALIX.3),
>>> and it hangs during
Andres Salomon schrieb:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:54:30 +0100
Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andres Salomon schrieb:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0500
Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:44:07 +0100
Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm
On 17/01/08 20:53 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Andres Salomon schrieb:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:54:30 +0100
Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andres Salomon schrieb:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0500
Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:44:07 +0100
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 20:53:57 +0100
Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andres Salomon schrieb:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:54:30 +0100
Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andres Salomon schrieb:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0500
Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On
On 17/01/08 23:52 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
snip
Hmmm - not sure whats happening here. I wonder if we're stuck in an
interrupt storm of some sort as soon as you register the interrupt handler.
But I would think that whatever was causing the interrupt storm would be
running well
On 17/01/08 22:50 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Jordan Crouse schrieb:
On 17/01/08 20:53 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Andres Salomon schrieb:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:54:30 +0100
Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andres Salomon schrieb:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0500
Andres
Jordan Crouse schrieb:
On 17/01/08 20:53 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Andres Salomon schrieb:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:54:30 +0100
Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andres Salomon schrieb:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0500
Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008
Jordan Crouse wrote:
On 17/01/08 22:50 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Jordan Crouse schrieb:
On 17/01/08 20:53 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Andres Salomon schrieb:
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008 10:54:30 +0100
Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andres Salomon schrieb:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12
Jordan Crouse schrieb:
On 17/01/08 23:52 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
snip
Hmmm - not sure whats happening here. I wonder if we're stuck in an
interrupt storm of some sort as soon as you register the interrupt handler.
But I would think that whatever was causing the interrupt storm would
On 18/01/08 00:39 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
Jordan Crouse schrieb:
On 17/01/08 23:52 +0100, Arnd Hannemann wrote:
snip
Hmmm - not sure whats happening here. I wonder if we're stuck in an
interrupt storm of some sort as soon as you register the interrupt
handler.
But I would
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0500
Andres Salomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:44:07 +0100
> Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm trying to boot 2.6.24-rc8 on a GEODE LX board (ALIX.3),
> > and it hangs during boot:
> >
> > [ 12.689971] NET:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:44:07 +0100
Arnd Hannemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to boot 2.6.24-rc8 on a GEODE LX board (ALIX.3),
> and it hangs during boot:
>
> [ 12.689971] NET: Registered protocol family 16
> [ 12.703329] geode-mfgpt: Registered timer 0
> [ 12.716149]
Hi,
I'm trying to boot 2.6.24-rc8 on a GEODE LX board (ALIX.3),
and it hangs during boot:
[ 12.689971] NET: Registered protocol family 16
[ 12.703329] geode-mfgpt: Registered timer 0
[ 12.716149] mfgpt-timer: registering the MFGT timer as a clock event...
full output attached.
Config
Hi,
I'm trying to boot 2.6.24-rc8 on a GEODE LX board (ALIX.3),
and it hangs during boot:
[ 12.689971] NET: Registered protocol family 16
[ 12.703329] geode-mfgpt: Registered timer 0
[ 12.716149] mfgpt-timer: registering the MFGT timer as a clock event...
full output attached.
Config
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:44:07 +0100
Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to boot 2.6.24-rc8 on a GEODE LX board (ALIX.3),
and it hangs during boot:
[ 12.689971] NET: Registered protocol family 16
[ 12.703329] geode-mfgpt: Registered timer 0
[ 12.716149]
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:19:12 -0500
Andres Salomon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:44:07 +0100
Arnd Hannemann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to boot 2.6.24-rc8 on a GEODE LX board (ALIX.3),
and it hangs during boot:
[ 12.689971] NET: Registered protocol
70 matches
Mail list logo
