On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Scott Wood writes:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 02:57:24PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
is there any specific reason, why out of these 7 patches only the first
one made it into the mainline? AFAICS, there has been only one comment,
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 02:44:30PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
3. The style in all the assembly code is not to have spaces after
commas separating instruction operands.
I'll do that if that's what is prefered, but how did that come about as
the style used? It's different from what we do in C,
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:01:47PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
3. The style in all the assembly code is not to have spaces after
commas separating instruction operands.
I'll do that if that's what is prefered, but how did that come about as
the style used? It's different from what we
Guennadi Liakhovetski writes:
The patch (with the _TLF_SLEEPING fix you mentioned in a later email)
works for me.
Great, thanks.
Shall I submit it From: you or would you prefer to post
it yourself? But, I guess, you have to put your S-o-b under it yourself,
don't you?
I'll post it as a
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 02:57:24PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
is there any specific reason, why out of these 7 patches only the first
one made it into the mainline? AFAICS, there has been only one comment,
suggesting to replace printk with dev_err on two occasions in one of
the
Scott Wood writes:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 02:57:24PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
is there any specific reason, why out of these 7 patches only the first
one made it into the mainline? AFAICS, there has been only one comment,
suggesting to replace printk with dev_err on two
I wrote:
+7: rlwinm r12,r12,0,~TLF_SLEEPING
That should be rlwinm r12,r12,0,~_TLF_SLEEPING (with the leading
underscore), of course. Thanks to Stephen Rothwell for pointing that
out.
Paul.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
Paulus,
is there any specific reason, why out of these 7 patches only the first
one made it into the mainline? AFAICS, there has been only one comment,
suggesting to replace printk with dev_err on two occasions in one of
the patches...
Thanks
Guennadi
---
Guennadi Liakhovetski
These hooks ensure that a decrementer interrupt is not pending when
suspending; otherwise, problems may occur. For example, with deep sleep
on the 831x, a pending decrementer will cause a system freeze because the
SoC thinks the decrementer interrupt would have woken the system, but the
core must
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 16:24:04 -0500
Scott Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
These hooks ensure that a decrementer interrupt is not pending when
suspending; otherwise, problems may occur. For example, with deep sleep
on the 831x, a pending decrementer will cause a system freeze because the
SoC
Josh Boyer wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND
+void generic_suspend_disable_irqs(void)
+{
+preempt_disable();
+
+/* Disable the decrementer, so that it doesn't interfere
+ * with suspending.
+ */
+
+set_dec(0x7fff);
+hard_irq_disable();
+set_dec(0x7fff);
On Tue, 2007-10-23 at 16:34 -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_SUSPEND
+void generic_suspend_disable_irqs(void)
+{
+ preempt_disable();
+
+ /* Disable the decrementer, so that it doesn't interfere
+ * with suspending.
+ */
+
+ set_dec(0x7fff);
12 matches
Mail list logo
