Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org writes:
In absence of good testing I would appreciate a close inspection of the patch
by different pairs of eyes :-)
Looks good to me. That broke apparently in 400d221 (ppc32: make
cur_cpu_spec a single pointer instead of an array), which
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 10:48 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Benjamin Herrenschmidt b...@kernel.crashing.org writes:
In absence of good testing I would appreciate a close inspection of the
patch
by different pairs of eyes :-)
Looks good to me. That broke apparently in 400d221 (ppc32:
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
Some of those functions try to adjust the CPU features, for example
to remove NAP support on some revisions. However, they seem to use
r5 as an index into the CPU table entry, which might have been right
a
On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 12:15 -0600, kevin diggs wrote:
I have a GigE (PowerMac 3,4?) with an upgrade card that has a pair of
7455s on it and an 8600 with a 750GX cpu card. I can probably test
this on the GigE. It is running 2.6.36. Is that recent enough? The
8600 is not cooperating.
The
Some of those functions try to adjust the CPU features, for example
to remove NAP support on some revisions. However, they seem to use
r5 as an index into the CPU table entry, which might have been right
a long time ago but no longer is. r4 is the right register to use.
This probably caused some
