On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 8:12 PM, Kumar Gala ga...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Mar 24, 2009, at 4:13 PM, Johns Daniel wrote:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kumar Gala ga...@kernel.crashing.org
wrote:
On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Johns Daniel wrote:
Could somebody please explain
Could somebody please explain the declaration of the PCIe interrupts
in the device tree?
I was under the impression that PCIe interrupts in the PowerPC Linux
kernel default to using INTx signaling (vs. external IRQ pin assertion
and MSI signaling). Am I right?
If so, then do the interrupt-map
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kumar Gala ga...@kernel.crashing.orgwrote:
On Mar 24, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Johns Daniel wrote:
Could somebody please explain the declaration of the PCIe interrupts
in the device tree?
I was under the impression that PCIe interrupts in the PowerPC Linux
TSEC/MDIO will not work with older device trees because of a semicolon
at the end of a macro resulting in an empty for loop body.
This fix only applies to 2.6.28; this code is gone in 2.6.29, according
to Grant Likely!
Signed-off-by: Johns Daniel johns.dan...@gmail.com
mailto:johns.dan
A semicolon at the end of the macro means that the for loop has an
empty body, and so TSEC/MDIO will not work with older device trees.
This fix only applies to 2.6.28; apparently, this code is gone for
2.6.29, according to Grant Likely!
Signed-off-by: Johns Daniel johns.dan...@gmail.com
For those of you who are running into this error:
24520:01 not found
eth0: Could not attach to PHY
IP-Config: Failed to open eth0
IP-Config: Device `eth0' not found.
There is a bug in recent kernels. I found it in 2.6.28.7:
(I did not get to complete the message!)
For those of you who are running into this error:
24520:01 not found
eth0: Could not attach to PHY
IP-Config: Failed to open eth0
IP-Config: Device `eth0' not found.
There is a bug in recent kernels. I found it in 2.6.28.7:
Is it possible -- and prudent -- to use a single kernel binary image
for two similar boards, one based on an e300 core and the other on an
e500v2 core?
I was surprised to see that the e500v2-targeted toolchain did build
the kernel for the e300 board just fine. Don't know whether this will
always
, but are there
other things I am not considering?
-- Johns
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Scott Wood scottw...@freescale.comwrote:
Johns Daniel wrote:
Is it possible -- and prudent -- to use a single kernel binary image
for two similar boards, one based on an e300 core and the other on an
e500v2
