* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150115 09:22]:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:28:39AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150115 02:53]:
I don't think we've proven a link there. While you're right that it
causes the wrong
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 08:21:20AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150115 09:22]:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:28:39AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150115 02:53]:
I don't think we've proven a
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150116 08:33]:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 08:21:20AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150115 09:22]:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:28:39AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Russell King - ARM Linux
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 08:41:06AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150116 08:33]:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 08:21:20AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150115 09:22]:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at
On Thursday 15 January 2015 07:37:48 Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com [150115 06:46]:
On Thu, Jan 15 2015 at 2:27:56 pm GMT, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:42:57 Marc Zyngier wrote:
Probably there is a workable strategy, but my
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 08:41:06AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150116 08:33]:
I would still like to understand /why/ enabling preempt causes the error.
Changing the preempt configuration really should not change what happens
on the bus.
On 16/01/15 16:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 15 January 2015 07:37:48 Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com [150115 06:46]:
On Thu, Jan 15 2015 at 2:27:56 pm GMT, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:42:57 Marc Zyngier wrote:
Probably
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150116 09:25]:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 08:41:06AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150116 08:33]:
I would still like to understand /why/ enabling preempt causes the error.
Changing the preempt
* Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com [150116 09:36]:
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150116 09:25]:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 08:41:06AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150116 08:33]:
I would still like to understand /why/
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 02:52:44PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com [150116 09:36]:
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150116 09:25]:
So, the GPIO driver really needs fixing - and I'd suggest fixing it
first, before fixing the DMA problem,
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150116 15:00]:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 02:52:44PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com [150116 09:36]:
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150116 09:25]:
So, the GPIO driver really needs fixing -
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 05:23:05PM +, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 16/01/15 16:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Thursday 15 January 2015 07:37:48 Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com [150115 06:46]:
On Thu, Jan 15 2015 at 2:27:56 pm GMT, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 07:28:39AM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150115 02:53]:
I don't think we've proven a link there. While you're right that it
causes the wrong interrupt to be claimed, I have two kernels here,
both claim the same
* Russell King - ARM Linux li...@arm.linux.org.uk [150115 02:53]:
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 02:14:08PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
Hi all,
Looks like the legacy IRQ numbers are now all wrong at least for omap4
since commit 9a1091ef0017 (irqchip: gic: Support hierarchy irq domain.).
On Thu, Jan 15 2015 at 2:27:56 pm GMT, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:42:57 Marc Zyngier wrote:
Of course, this is in no way a proper fix, but I suppose the OMAP DT is
still missing a few bits...
I must be missing something here, but all the interrupts are
* Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com [150115 06:46]:
On Thu, Jan 15 2015 at 2:27:56 pm GMT, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:42:57 Marc Zyngier wrote:
Of course, this is in no way a proper fix, but I suppose the OMAP DT is
still missing a few bits...
I
On Thursday 15 January 2015 14:43:35 Marc Zyngier wrote:
On Thu, Jan 15 2015 at 2:27:56 pm GMT, Arnd Bergmann a...@arndb.de wrote:
On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:42:57 Marc Zyngier wrote:
Of course, this is in no way a proper fix, but I suppose the OMAP DT is
still missing a few bits...
On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 02:14:08PM -0800, Tony Lindgren wrote:
Hi all,
Looks like the legacy IRQ numbers are now all wrong at least for omap4
since commit 9a1091ef0017 (irqchip: gic: Support hierarchy irq domain.).
Instead of this:
# cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0 CPU1
On Wed, Jan 14 2015 at 10:14:08 pm GMT, Tony Lindgren t...@atomide.com wrote:
Hi all,
Looks like the legacy IRQ numbers are now all wrong at least for omap4
since commit 9a1091ef0017 (irqchip: gic: Support hierarchy irq domain.).
Instead of this:
# cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0
On Thursday 15 January 2015 13:42:57 Marc Zyngier wrote:
Of course, this is in no way a proper fix, but I suppose the OMAP DT is
still missing a few bits...
I must be missing something here, but all the interrupts are listed
correctly in the DT, so what is the omap_hwmod_irq_info actually
Hi all,
Looks like the legacy IRQ numbers are now all wrong at least for omap4
since commit 9a1091ef0017 (irqchip: gic: Support hierarchy irq domain.).
Instead of this:
# cat /proc/interrupts
CPU0 CPU1
29: 1124981 GIC 29 twd
39: 0
21 matches
Mail list logo
