On 30.12.2014 03:23, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 12/23/2014 04:48 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
-static void l2c310_resume(void)
+static void l2c310_configure(void __iomem *base)
{
- void __iomem *base = l2x0_base;
+ unsigned revision;
- if (!(readl_relaxed(base + L2X0_CTRL)
On 30.12.2014 23:51, Nishanth Menon wrote:
Looks like the following also need addressing:
data-save is called twice (once more after l2cof_init)
l2c310_init_fns also needs l2c310_configure
will be nice to use l2x0_data only after we kmemdup data in __l2c_init
I'll check this.
Thanks.
On 01/02/2015 02:55 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
On 30.12.2014 03:23, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 12/23/2014 04:48 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
-static void l2c310_resume(void)
+static void l2c310_configure(void __iomem *base)
{
- void __iomem *base = l2x0_base;
+ unsigned revision;
- if
On 01/02/2015 03:28 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
On 02.01.2015 18:13, Tomasz Figa wrote:
On 30.12.2014 23:51, Nishanth Menon wrote:
Looks like the following also need addressing:
data-save is called twice (once more after l2cof_init)
l2c310_init_fns also needs l2c310_configure
will be nice to
On 01/02/2015 03:13 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
However I'm not sure about your concern about using l2x0_data before
kmemdup(). I don't see any code potentially doing this.
It is not terribly important, but anyways [1] is what I had in mind..
[1]
Thanks a lot for investigating this, even before I could look into
splitting this.
2014-12-30 3:23 GMT+09:00 Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com:
On 12/23/2014 04:48 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
-static void l2c310_resume(void)
+static void l2c310_configure(void __iomem *base)
{
- void __iomem
On 12/30/2014 03:05 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
Thanks a lot for investigating this, even before I could look into
splitting this.
2014-12-30 3:23 GMT+09:00 Nishanth Menon n...@ti.com:
On 12/23/2014 04:48 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
-static void l2c310_resume(void)
+static void
On 20:34-20141228, Tomasz Figa wrote:
May I ask you (or anyone else working on OMAP) to try to figure out
what the issue is? It is stopping L2 cache support for Exynos4 being
http://slexy.org/view/s2BnzxVglj
Took a register dump and compared - Got the same dump
http://slexy.org/view/s21YRHpzeW
On 12/23/2014 04:48 AM, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
-static void l2c310_resume(void)
+static void l2c310_configure(void __iomem *base)
{
- void __iomem *base = l2x0_base;
+ unsigned revision;
- if (!(readl_relaxed(base + L2X0_CTRL) L2X0_CTRL_EN)) {
- unsigned
Nishanth, Tony,
On 24.12.2014 02:13, Nishanth Menon wrote:
On 12/23/2014 11:06 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Marek Szyprowski m.szyprow...@samsung.com [141223 02:51]:
From: Tomasz Figa t.f...@samsung.com
Certain implementations of secure hypervisors (namely the one found on
Samsung Exynos-based
From: Tomasz Figa t.f...@samsung.com
Certain implementations of secure hypervisors (namely the one found on
Samsung Exynos-based boards) do not provide access to individual L2C
registers. This makes the .write_sec()-based interface insufficient and
provoking ugly hacks.
This patch is first step
* Marek Szyprowski m.szyprow...@samsung.com [141223 02:51]:
From: Tomasz Figa t.f...@samsung.com
Certain implementations of secure hypervisors (namely the one found on
Samsung Exynos-based boards) do not provide access to individual L2C
registers. This makes the .write_sec()-based interface
On 12/23/2014 11:06 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
* Marek Szyprowski m.szyprow...@samsung.com [141223 02:51]:
From: Tomasz Figa t.f...@samsung.com
Certain implementations of secure hypervisors (namely the one found on
Samsung Exynos-based boards) do not provide access to individual L2C
registers.
13 matches
Mail list logo
