Re: [PATCH 0/2] move of_find_next_cache_node to DT core
On Fri, 04 Oct 2013 11:42:49 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com wrote: Hi Grant, On 18/09/13 17:18, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: On 18/09/13 15:51, Grant Likely wrote: On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:53:03 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com wrote: From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com Hi, The cache bindings are generic and used by many other architectures apart from PPC. These patches fixes and move the existing definition of of_find_next_cache_node to DT common code. Regards, Sudeep Acked-by: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca However, do you have a user for this function on other architectures yet? I'd like to see a user for the function in the same patch series.. Yes I have posted an RFC[1] following this series implementing cacheinfo for ARM similar to x86 implementation. I was not sure if it's good idea to combine it as its still initial RFC version. Do you prefer to have this a independent change or to go with the cache topology support patches[1] on ARM ? Ben's already picked it up, so I'm fine with it. g. ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 0/2] move of_find_next_cache_node to DT core
Hi Grant, On 18/09/13 17:18, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: On 18/09/13 15:51, Grant Likely wrote: On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:53:03 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com wrote: From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com Hi, The cache bindings are generic and used by many other architectures apart from PPC. These patches fixes and move the existing definition of of_find_next_cache_node to DT common code. Regards, Sudeep Acked-by: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca However, do you have a user for this function on other architectures yet? I'd like to see a user for the function in the same patch series.. Yes I have posted an RFC[1] following this series implementing cacheinfo for ARM similar to x86 implementation. I was not sure if it's good idea to combine it as its still initial RFC version. Do you prefer to have this a independent change or to go with the cache topology support patches[1] on ARM ? Regards, Sudeep [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/18/340 ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
[PATCH 0/2] move of_find_next_cache_node to DT core
From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com Hi, The cache bindings are generic and used by many other architectures apart from PPC. These patches fixes and move the existing definition of of_find_next_cache_node to DT common code. Regards, Sudeep Sudeep KarkadaNagesha (2): powerpc: remove big endianness assumption in of_find_next_cache_node of: move definition of of_find_next_cache_node into common code. arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h | 3 --- arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c | 31 --- drivers/of/base.c | 31 +++ include/linux/of.h | 2 ++ 4 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) -- 1.8.1.2 ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 0/2] move of_find_next_cache_node to DT core
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:53:03 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com wrote: From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com Hi, The cache bindings are generic and used by many other architectures apart from PPC. These patches fixes and move the existing definition of of_find_next_cache_node to DT common code. Regards, Sudeep Acked-by: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca However, do you have a user for this function on other architectures yet? I'd like to see a user for the function in the same patch series.. g. Sudeep KarkadaNagesha (2): powerpc: remove big endianness assumption in of_find_next_cache_node of: move definition of of_find_next_cache_node into common code. arch/powerpc/include/asm/prom.h | 3 --- arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c | 31 --- drivers/of/base.c | 31 +++ include/linux/of.h | 2 ++ 4 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-) -- 1.8.1.2 ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
Re: [PATCH 0/2] move of_find_next_cache_node to DT core
On 18/09/13 15:51, Grant Likely wrote: On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 11:53:03 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com wrote: From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com Hi, The cache bindings are generic and used by many other architectures apart from PPC. These patches fixes and move the existing definition of of_find_next_cache_node to DT common code. Regards, Sudeep Acked-by: Grant Likely grant.lik...@secretlab.ca However, do you have a user for this function on other architectures yet? I'd like to see a user for the function in the same patch series.. Yes I have posted an RFC[1] following this series implementing cacheinfo for ARM similar to x86 implementation. I was not sure if it's good idea to combine it as its still initial RFC version. Regards, Sudeep [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/9/18/340 ___ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
