On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:42:03AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 06:31 -0500, Ayman El-Khashab wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 08:19:56PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 18:52 -0500, Ayman El-Khashab wrote:
I noticed during a recent
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 06:31 -0500, Ayman El-Khashab wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 08:19:56PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 18:52 -0500, Ayman El-Khashab wrote:
I noticed during a recent development with the 460SX that a
simple device that once worked stopped.
On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 18:52 -0500, Ayman El-Khashab wrote:
I noticed during a recent development with the 460SX that a
simple device that once worked stopped. I did a bisect to
find the offending commit and it turns out to be this one:
0e52247a2ed1f211f0c4f682dc999610a368903f is the first
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 08:19:56PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 18:52 -0500, Ayman El-Khashab wrote:
I noticed during a recent development with the 460SX that a
simple device that once worked stopped. I did a bisect to
find the offending commit and it turns
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 06:31 -0500, Ayman El-Khashab wrote:
That was my initial thought as well, but I wasn't versed
enough in the pci magic in order to completely figure it
out.
Here is the output, it is dmesg, iomem, then ioports for the
passing and then the failing cases.
Ok, I can see
I noticed during a recent development with the 460SX that a
simple device that once worked stopped. I did a bisect to
find the offending commit and it turns out to be this one:
0e52247a2ed1f211f0c4f682dc999610a368903f is the first bad
commit
commit 0e52247a2ed1f211f0c4f682dc999610a368903f
