On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 08:46:38PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:59:30 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> > > On 19/08/13 14:02, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > > On 08/19/2013 05:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 08:46:38PM +0100, Grant Likely wrote:
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:59:30 +0100, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
On 19/08/13 14:02, Rob Herring wrote:
On 08/19/2013 05:19 AM, Mark Rutland
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:59:30 +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> > On 19/08/13 14:02, Rob Herring wrote:
> > > On 08/19/2013 05:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:59:30 +0100, Mark Rutland mark.rutl...@arm.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
On 19/08/13 14:02, Rob Herring wrote:
On 08/19/2013 05:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, Benjamin
On 22/08/13 14:59, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
>> On 19/08/13 14:02, Rob Herring wrote:
>>> On 08/19/2013 05:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat,
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> On 19/08/13 14:02, Rob Herring wrote:
> > On 08/19/2013 05:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
On 19/08/13 14:02, Rob Herring wrote:
On 08/19/2013 05:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I wonder
On 22/08/13 14:59, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
On 19/08/13 14:02, Rob Herring wrote:
On 08/19/2013 05:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50
On 19/08/13 14:02, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 08/19/2013 05:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for
On 08/19/2013 05:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
>>> I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for
>>> which
>>> the updated bindings[1] define
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for
> > which
> > the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells = <0> and so no reg
> > property.
>
On 16/08/13 23:13, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 18:39 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
>> +static bool __of_find_n_match_cpu_property(struct device_node *cpun,
>> + const char *prop_name, int cpu, unsigned int
>> *thread)
>> +{
>> + const
On 16/08/13 23:13, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 18:39 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
+static bool __of_find_n_match_cpu_property(struct device_node *cpun,
+ const char *prop_name, int cpu, unsigned int
*thread)
+{
+ const __be32 *cell;
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for
which
the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells = 0 and so no reg
property.
[1] -
On 08/19/2013 05:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for
which
the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells =
On 19/08/13 14:02, Rob Herring wrote:
On 08/19/2013 05:19 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 11:09:36PM +0100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for
which
the
On Sunday 18 of August 2013 08:09:36 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> > I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for
> > which
> > the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells = <0> and so no reg
> > property.
> >
> >
On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for
> which
> the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells = <0> and so no reg
> property.
>
> [1] - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260795
Why did you
Hi Sudeep,
This looks good to me overall, but I have one more question inline.
On Friday 16 of August 2013 18:39:50 Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
>
> Currently different drivers requiring to access cpu device node are
> parsing the device tree themselves. Since the
Hi Sudeep,
This looks good to me overall, but I have one more question inline.
On Friday 16 of August 2013 18:39:50 Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com
Currently different drivers requiring to access cpu device node are
parsing the device
On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for
which
the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells = 0 and so no reg
property.
[1] - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260795
Why did you do that
On Sunday 18 of August 2013 08:09:36 Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 12:50 +0200, Tomasz Figa wrote:
I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for
which
the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells = 0 and so no reg
property.
[1] -
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 18:39 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> +static bool __of_find_n_match_cpu_property(struct device_node *cpun,
> + const char *prop_name, int cpu, unsigned int
> *thread)
> +{
> + const __be32 *cell;
> + int ac, prop_len, tid;
> +
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 18:39 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
+static bool __of_find_n_match_cpu_property(struct device_node *cpun,
+ const char *prop_name, int cpu, unsigned int
*thread)
+{
+ const __be32 *cell;
+ int ac, prop_len, tid;
+ u64 hwid;
24 matches
Mail list logo
