RE: [PATCH 1/2] Powerpc: Add voltage ranges support for T4

2013-07-22 Thread Wrobel Heinz-R39252
> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Powerpc: Add voltage ranges support for T4 > > Special voltages that can be support by eSDHC of T4 in esdhc node. > > Signed-off-by: Haijun Zhang > Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/mmc/fsl-esdhc.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree

RE: kernel panic during kernel module load (powerpc specific part)

2012-06-01 Thread Wrobel Heinz-R39252
> > I believe that the basic premise is that you should provide a directly > > reachable copy of the save/rstore functions, even if this means that > you need several copies of the functions. > > I just fixed a very similar problem with grub2 in fact. It was using r0 > and trashing the saved LR th

RE: kernel panic during kernel module load (powerpc specific part)

2012-05-31 Thread Wrobel Heinz-R39252
Michael, > On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 16:33 +0200, Steffen Rumler wrote: > > I've found the following root cause: > > > > (6) Unfortunately, the trampoline code (do_plt_call()) is using > register r11 to setup the jump. > >It looks like the prologue and epilogue are using also the > re

module loading issue/flaw in busy memory situation?

2012-05-24 Thread Wrobel Heinz-R39252
Hi, let's assume a module gets loaded into an already busy system, and the ".init.text" section with the __init function gets loaded into one memory region, and the normal ".text" section gets loaded into a totally different memory region. Now assume that both regions are >32MB apart in address

RE: AW: PowerPC PCI DMA issues (prefetch/coherency?)

2009-09-03 Thread Wrobel Heinz-R39252
Hi, This doesn't seem right. If we are talking about a single CPU core chip, i.e., just one data cache, then setting M is typically a) useless and could even b) cause a performance penalty depending on a chip's implementation. The M bit is required if *other* cores with caches need to see changes

RE: removing get_immrbase()??

2009-04-24 Thread Wrobel Heinz-R39252
> > We've run into plenty of situations where customers will update the > > kernel, but insist that U-Boot and the device tree remain unchanged. > > when? I'm not aware of any significant # of cases that > customer is willing to update kernel & not dts. Usually if > they are willing to update