Dear Dave Liu,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED] you wrote:
The patch is following the commit 392438406041415fe64ab8748ec5ab5ad01d1cf7
mpc86xx: use r4 instead of r2 in lock_ram_in_cache and unlock_ram_in_cache
This is needed in unlock_ram_in_cache() because it is called from C and
will corrupt
The patch is following the commit 392438406041415fe64ab8748ec5ab5ad01d1cf7
mpc86xx: use r4 instead of r2 in lock_ram_in_cache and unlock_ram_in_cache
This is needed in unlock_ram_in_cache() because it is called from C and
will corrupt the small data area anchor that is kept in R2.
On Oct 23, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Dave Liu wrote:
The patch is following the commit
392438406041415fe64ab8748ec5ab5ad01d1cf7
mpc86xx: use r4 instead of r2 in lock_ram_in_cache and
unlock_ram_in_cache
This is needed in unlock_ram_in_cache() because it is called from C
and
will corrupt
On Oct 23, 2008, at 9:20 AM, Liu Dave-R63238 wrote:
From: Kumar Gala [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Oct 23, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Dave Liu wrote:
The patch is following the commit
392438406041415fe64ab8748ec5ab5ad01d1cf7
mpc86xx: use r4 instead of r2 in lock_ram_in_cache and
4 matches
Mail list logo