Move ehea hcall definitions into hvcall.h.
Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard an...@samba.org
---
Index: linux.trees.git/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hvcall.h
===
--- linux.trees.git.orig/arch/powerpc/include/asm/hvcall.h 2009-10-19
Adds documentation for the size parameter of Freescale's QorIQ
based cache-sram
Signed-off-by: Vivek Mahajan vivek.maha...@freescale.com
---
v2, v3: No change over v1
Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt |3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git
Adds documentation for Freescale's QorIQ based cache-sram as under:-
* How to enable it from a low level driver
* How to set its size
Signed-off-by: Vivek Mahajan vivek.maha...@freescale.com
---
v2, v3: No change over v1
Documentation/powerpc/fsl_85xx_cache_sram.txt | 31
This adds QorIQ based Cache-SRAM support as under:-
* A small abstraction over powerpc's remote heap allocator
* Exports mpc85xx_cache_sram_alloc()/free() APIs
* Supports only one contiguous SRAM window
* Defines FSL_85XX_CACHE_SRAM and its base address
Signed-off-by: Vivek Mahajan
Hi Grant,
Hello List,
is there anybody who was successfully run Linux kernel on Freescale MPC5554
[1], [2] or on Freescale MPC5534 [3], [4]? Both of these embedded PowerPC
controllers have the e200z6 core.
Is there anybody who is working with these controllers or with the e200z6 core?
Hi Grant,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 08:55:01PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
From: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
Adds support for the dedicated SPI device on the Freescale MPC5200(b)
SoC.
Signed-off-by: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
do you have an updated version to share?
On Oct 20, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Németh Márton wrote:
Hi Grant,
Hello List,
is there anybody who was successfully run Linux kernel on Freescale
MPC5554
[1], [2] or on Freescale MPC5534 [3], [4]? Both of these embedded
PowerPC
controllers have the e200z6 core.
Is there anybody who is working
2009/10/21 Németh Márton nm...@freemail.hu:
Hi Grant,
Hello List,
is there anybody who was successfully run Linux kernel on Freescale MPC5554
[1], [2] or on Freescale MPC5534 [3], [4]? Both of these embedded PowerPC
controllers have the e200z6 core.
Is there anybody who is working with
This is a re-send of the entire patch set with updates made from the comments
I have received, namely patches 1,3 and 5. I am re-sending the entire patch
set for clarity.
The Dynamic Logical Partitioning (DLPAR) capabilities of the powerpc pseries
platform allows for the addition and removal of
This patch provides the kernel DLPAR infrastructure in a new filed named
dlpar.c. The functionality provided is for acquiring and releasing a
resource from firmware and the parsing of information returned from the
ibm,configure-connector rtas call. Additionally this exports the
pSeries
Move the definition of the of_drconf_cell struct from numa.c to prom.h. This
is needed so that we can parse the ibm,dynamic-memory device-tree property
when DLPAR adding and removing memory.
Signed-off-by: Nathan Fontenot nfont at austin.ibm.com
---
Index:
Export the memory_sysdev_class structure. This is needed so we can create
a 'release' file in sysfs in addition to the existing 'probe' file in
order to support DLPAR removal of memory on the powerpc/pseries platform.
The new 'release' file will be powerpc/pseries only.
Signed-off-by: Nathan
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Wolfram Sang w.s...@pengutronix.de wrote:
Hi Grant,
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 08:55:01PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
From: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca
Adds support for the dedicated SPI device on the Freescale MPC5200(b)
SoC.
Signed-off-by: Grant
This adds the capability to DLPAR add and remove memory from the kernel. The
patch extends the powerpc handling of memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(), which is
called from the sysfs memory 'probe' file to first ensure that the memory
has been added to the system. This is done by creating a platform
This adds the capability to DLPAR add and remove CPUs from the kernel. The
creates two new files /sys/devices/system/cpu/probe and
/sys/devices/system/cpu/release to handle the DLPAR addition and removal of
CPUs respectively.
CPU DLPAR add is accomplished by writing the drc-index of the CPU to
On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 09:52 +0200, Fortini Matteo wrote:
I didn't find a cleaner way than just #ifdef'ing the map_copy_from call
and substitute with my call on relevant cases. I wonder if there is a
cleaner way.
Remove the call to simple_map_init() and do it manually in your driver
with
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Oct 20, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Németh Márton wrote:
Hi Grant,
Hello List,
is there anybody who was successfully run Linux kernel on Freescale
MPC5554
[1], [2] or on Freescale MPC5534 [3], [4]? Both of these embedded
PowerPC
controllers have the e200z6 core.
Is
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 09:44 -0500, Nathan Fontenot wrote:
Export the memory_sysdev_class structure. This is needed so we can create
a 'release' file in sysfs in addition to the existing 'probe' file in
order to support DLPAR removal of memory on the powerpc/pseries platform.
The new 'release'
V4 was supposed to go in during the merge window. But I haven't heard
anything from David (and I didn't pursue it either). Unless David
objects, I'll put it into either my -merge or my -next tree; depending
on what Ben and Linus prefer.
I wondered if there was going to be a V5 as you said
Dear Vivek Mahajan,
In message 1256129459-10685-2-git-send-email-vivek.maha...@freescale.com you
wrote:
Adds documentation for Freescale's QorIQ based cache-sram as under:-
* How to enable it from a low level driver
* How to set its size
...
+The size of the above cache SRAM memory window
Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Vivek Mahajan,
In message 1256129459-10685-2-git-send-email-vivek.maha...@freescale.com you
wrote:
Adds documentation for Freescale's QorIQ based cache-sram as under:-
* How to enable it from a low level driver
* How to set its size
...
+The size of the above
On Oct 21, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Aaron Pace wrote:
Hello,
For the e500 processors, it appears that the first 3 of 16 permanent
TLB entries are used to map lowmem. Are the other 13 ever used?
not right now. We intend to use them for hugetlbfs support.
- k
On Oct 21, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Németh Márton wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Oct 20, 2009, at 5:21 PM, Németh Márton wrote:
Hi Grant,
Hello List,
is there anybody who was successfully run Linux kernel on Freescale
MPC5554
[1], [2] or on Freescale MPC5534 [3], [4]? Both of these embedded
PowerPC
When corrupted, curtain blocks of 64 bytes are messed up.
This is a screen dump of a good unflattened device at beginning:
NCCv2md 0x3ffdd40
03ffdd40 : c3ffddd4 c025a8dc .%..
03ffdd50 : c3ffdd80 c3ffdd84
03ffdd60 : c3ffddd8
From 0c2b412cdccf73bdeb19bb866bfe556942eaeca2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Kacur jka...@redhat.com
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:01:12 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] macintosh: Explicitly set llseek to no_llseek in ans-lcd
Now that we've removed the BKL here, let's explicitly set lleek to no_llseek
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:07:18PM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
From 0c2b412cdccf73bdeb19bb866bfe556942eaeca2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Kacur jka...@redhat.com
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:01:12 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] macintosh: Explicitly set llseek to no_llseek in ans-lcd
Now that
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:07:18PM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
From 0c2b412cdccf73bdeb19bb866bfe556942eaeca2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: John Kacur jka...@redhat.com
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:01:12 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] macintosh:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:33:17PM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
Should we better pushdown default_llseek to every to every
file operations that don't implement llseek?
I don't know how many of them don't implement llseek() though.
That said we can't continue anymore with this default
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:33:17PM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
Should we better pushdown default_llseek to every to every
file operations that don't implement llseek?
I don't know how many of them don't implement llseek() though.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 11:53:21PM +0200, John Kacur wrote:
No problem with that. Setting no_llseek or generic_file_llseek_unlocked,
depending on the context is the right thing to do.
What I'm wondering about concerns the future code that will have
no llsek() implemented in their fops.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:43:55AM -0700, Lixin Yao wrote:
When corrupted, curtain blocks of 64 bytes are messed up.
This is a screen dump of a good unflattened device at beginning:
[snip]
When corrupted, it becomes following, note the 64 bock at 0x03ffdf00
is messed up. And this kind of
Last week I reported a bug:
http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/2009-October/076727.html
I managed to drill past the unrelated breakage and bisect it back to the
relevant commit: It was introduced leading up to 2.6.29, by commit
f751928e0ddf54ea4fe5546f35e99efc5b5d9938 written by
Wolfgang Denk Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 2009 11:20 PM
* How to enable it from a low level driver
* How to set its size
...
+The size of the above cache SRAM memory window is passed via the
+kernel command line as cache-sram-size=
Would it not make more sense to configure this
irqs_disabled_flags is #defined in linux/irqflags.h when
CONFIG_TRACE_IRQFLAGS_SUPPORT is enabled.
This fixes the case when someone needs to include both linux/irqflags.h
and asm/hw_irq.h.
Signed-off-by: Michael Neuling mi...@neuling.org
---
I'm not sure if this is the right fix. We could just
34 matches
Mail list logo
