Blanchard; devicetree-disc...@lists.ozlabs.org; linuxppc-
d...@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] powerpc: Removing support for 'protected-
sources'
In my previous reply I said that it is not so much as a need as it is
a potential simplification. After further reflection, I
On 02/06/2011 05:35 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 17:25 -0600, Meador Inge wrote:
In a recent thread [1,2,3] concerning device trees for AMP systems, the
question of whether we really need 'protected-sources' arose. The general
consensus was that a new boolean
In my previous reply I said that it is not so much as a need as it is a
potential simplification. After further reflection, I don't think that
is completely true. As we get into AMP systems with higher core counts,
then implementing this functionality using the existing
On 02/07/2011 03:45 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
In my previous reply I said that it is not so much as a need as it is a
potential simplification. After further reflection, I don't think that
is completely true. As we get into AMP systems with higher core counts,
then implementing this
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 17:25 -0600, Meador Inge wrote:
In a recent thread [1,2,3] concerning device trees for AMP systems, the
question of whether we really need 'protected-sources' arose. The general
consensus was that a new boolean property 'pic-no-reset' (described in more
detail in a
On 02/06/2011 05:35 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2011-02-04 at 17:25 -0600, Meador Inge wrote:
In a recent thread [1,2,3] concerning device trees for AMP systems, the
question of whether we really need 'protected-sources' arose. The general
consensus was that a new boolean
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 19:32 -0600, Meador Inge wrote:
So barring the removal of protected sources, does the inclusion of the
pic-no-reset property seem reasonable?
Sure.
Ben.
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
