* [2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update
@ 2007-08-01 13:30 Adrian Bunk
2007-08-01 13:53 ` Grant Likely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2007-08-01 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rutger Nijlunsing, Paul Mackerras; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, linux-kernel
arch/ppc/.gitignore shouldn't exclude arch/ppc/boot/include
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
---
--- /dev/null 2006-09-19 00:45:31.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-2.6.23-rc1-mm2/arch/ppc/boot/.gitignore 2007-08-01 15:18:33.000000000 +0200
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+!include
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update
2007-08-01 13:30 [2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update Adrian Bunk
@ 2007-08-01 13:53 ` Grant Likely
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2007-08-01 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk; +Cc: Rutger Nijlunsing, Paul Mackerras, linux-kernel, linuxppc-dev
On 8/1/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> arch/ppc/.gitignore shouldn't exclude arch/ppc/boot/include
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
>
> ---
> --- /dev/null 2006-09-19 00:45:31.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.23-rc1-mm2/arch/ppc/boot/.gitignore 2007-08-01 15:18:33.000000000 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +!include
I don't think this is the best way to go about it; rather,
arch/ppc/.gitignore should be made more specific like so:
diff --git a/arch/ppc/.gitignore b/arch/ppc/.gitignore
index a1a869c..1e79a0a 100644
--- a/arch/ppc/.gitignore
+++ b/arch/ppc/.gitignore
@@ -1 +1 @@
-include
+/include
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
>
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely@secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update
@ 2007-08-01 13:53 ` Grant Likely
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Grant Likely @ 2007-08-01 13:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Adrian Bunk; +Cc: Rutger Nijlunsing, Paul Mackerras, linuxppc-dev, linux-kernel
On 8/1/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> arch/ppc/.gitignore shouldn't exclude arch/ppc/boot/include
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
>
> ---
> --- /dev/null 2006-09-19 00:45:31.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.23-rc1-mm2/arch/ppc/boot/.gitignore 2007-08-01 15:18:33.000000000 +0200
> @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> +!include
I don't think this is the best way to go about it; rather,
arch/ppc/.gitignore should be made more specific like so:
diff --git a/arch/ppc/.gitignore b/arch/ppc/.gitignore
index a1a869c..1e79a0a 100644
--- a/arch/ppc/.gitignore
+++ b/arch/ppc/.gitignore
@@ -1 +1 @@
-include
+/include
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
>
--
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely@secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update
2007-08-01 13:53 ` Grant Likely
@ 2007-08-01 19:06 ` Adrian Bunk
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2007-08-01 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Grant Likely
Cc: Rutger Nijlunsing, Paul Mackerras, linux-kernel, linuxppc-dev
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:53:28AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > arch/ppc/.gitignore shouldn't exclude arch/ppc/boot/include
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> >
> > ---
> > --- /dev/null 2006-09-19 00:45:31.000000000 +0200
> > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc1-mm2/arch/ppc/boot/.gitignore 2007-08-01 15:18:33.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> > +!include
>
> I don't think this is the best way to go about it; rather,
> arch/ppc/.gitignore should be made more specific like so:
>
> diff --git a/arch/ppc/.gitignore b/arch/ppc/.gitignore
> index a1a869c..1e79a0a 100644
> --- a/arch/ppc/.gitignore
> +++ b/arch/ppc/.gitignore
> @@ -1 +1 @@
> -include
> +/include
Thanks, that's obviously better than my patch.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* Re: [2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update
@ 2007-08-01 19:06 ` Adrian Bunk
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2007-08-01 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Grant Likely
Cc: Rutger Nijlunsing, Paul Mackerras, linuxppc-dev, linux-kernel
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 07:53:28AM -0600, Grant Likely wrote:
> On 8/1/07, Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de> wrote:
> > arch/ppc/.gitignore shouldn't exclude arch/ppc/boot/include
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>
> >
> > ---
> > --- /dev/null 2006-09-19 00:45:31.000000000 +0200
> > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc1-mm2/arch/ppc/boot/.gitignore 2007-08-01 15:18:33.000000000 +0200
> > @@ -0,0 +1 @@
> > +!include
>
> I don't think this is the best way to go about it; rather,
> arch/ppc/.gitignore should be made more specific like so:
>
> diff --git a/arch/ppc/.gitignore b/arch/ppc/.gitignore
> index a1a869c..1e79a0a 100644
> --- a/arch/ppc/.gitignore
> +++ b/arch/ppc/.gitignore
> @@ -1 +1 @@
> -include
> +/include
Thanks, that's obviously better than my patch.
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR
2007-08-01 13:53 ` Grant Likely
(?)
(?)
@ 2007-08-01 20:20 ` Keith Mund
2007-08-02 0:20 ` [U-Boot-Users] " Kim Phillips
-1 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Keith Mund @ 2007-08-01 20:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev
There was a u-boot 1.1.3 patch for start.S posted on the Freescale LTIB
site:
http://www.bitshrine.org/gpp/u-boot-1.1.3-mpc83xx-cpu-4.patch
The end result simply adds a line to set MBAR to match IMMRBAR.
lis r3, CFG_IMMRBAR@h
ori r3, r3, CFG_IMMRBAR@l
stw r3, IMMRBAR(r4)
+ mtspr MBAR, r3
Are these patches routinely added to the mainstream u-boot code?=20
Is there any reason why this fix is not a good idea?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread* Re: MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR
2007-08-01 20:20 ` MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR Keith Mund
@ 2007-08-02 0:20 ` Kim Phillips
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Kim Phillips @ 2007-08-02 0:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Keith Mund; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, u-boot-users
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:20:22 -0500
"Keith Mund" <keith.mund@clearcube.com> wrote:
> There was a u-boot 1.1.3 patch for start.S posted on the Freescale LTIB
posts concerning u-boot should go to the u-boot-users list (cc'd).
> site:
> http://www.bitshrine.org/gpp/u-boot-1.1.3-mpc83xx-cpu-4.patch
>
> The end result simply adds a line to set MBAR to match IMMRBAR.
>
> lis r3, CFG_IMMRBAR@h
> ori r3, r3, CFG_IMMRBAR@l
> stw r3, IMMRBAR(r4)
> + mtspr MBAR, r3
>
> Are these patches routinely added to the mainstream u-boot code?
>
> Is there any reason why this fix is not a good idea?
>
does setting MBAR really fix anything?
MBAR doesn't live up to its name. It's a general-purpose scratch
register - the hardware doesn't do anything with it. So, wrt integrity
within u-boot itself, I see no point/value in setting it. If some
piece of software needs temporary storage, it can set it and use it as
it wishes, independent of u-boot.
Kim
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR
@ 2007-08-02 0:20 ` Kim Phillips
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Kim Phillips @ 2007-08-02 0:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007 15:20:22 -0500
"Keith Mund" <keith.mund@clearcube.com> wrote:
> There was a u-boot 1.1.3 patch for start.S posted on the Freescale LTIB
posts concerning u-boot should go to the u-boot-users list (cc'd).
> site:
> http://www.bitshrine.org/gpp/u-boot-1.1.3-mpc83xx-cpu-4.patch
>
> The end result simply adds a line to set MBAR to match IMMRBAR.
>
> lis r3, CFG_IMMRBAR at h
> ori r3, r3, CFG_IMMRBAR at l
> stw r3, IMMRBAR(r4)
> + mtspr MBAR, r3
>
> Are these patches routinely added to the mainstream u-boot code?
>
> Is there any reason why this fix is not a good idea?
>
does setting MBAR really fix anything?
MBAR doesn't live up to its name. It's a general-purpose scratch
register - the hardware doesn't do anything with it. So, wrt integrity
within u-boot itself, I see no point/value in setting it. If some
piece of software needs temporary storage, it can set it and use it as
it wishes, independent of u-boot.
Kim
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* RE: [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR
2007-08-02 0:20 ` [U-Boot-Users] " Kim Phillips
@ 2007-08-02 2:14 ` Liu Dave-r63238
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Liu Dave-r63238 @ 2007-08-02 2:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Phillips Kim-R1AAHA, Keith Mund; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, u-boot-users
> > The end result simply adds a line to set MBAR to match IMMRBAR.
> >=20
> > lis r3, CFG_IMMRBAR@h
> > ori r3, r3, CFG_IMMRBAR@l
> > stw r3, IMMRBAR(r4)
> > + mtspr MBAR, r3
> >=20
> > Are these patches routinely added to the mainstream u-boot code?=20
> >=20
> > Is there any reason why this fix is not a good idea?
> >=20
> does setting MBAR really fix anything?
>=20
> MBAR doesn't live up to its name. It's a general-purpose scratch
> register - the hardware doesn't do anything with it. So, wrt=20
Kim is right.
MBAR setting is added by two years ago, it is not really fix anything.
I set the MBAR to be easier to use the CodeWarriror. The CodeWarrior
must set the MBAR first, then it will be able to access the IMMR.
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR
@ 2007-08-02 2:14 ` Liu Dave-r63238
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Liu Dave-r63238 @ 2007-08-02 2:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
> > The end result simply adds a line to set MBAR to match IMMRBAR.
> >
> > lis r3, CFG_IMMRBAR at h
> > ori r3, r3, CFG_IMMRBAR at l
> > stw r3, IMMRBAR(r4)
> > + mtspr MBAR, r3
> >
> > Are these patches routinely added to the mainstream u-boot code?
> >
> > Is there any reason why this fix is not a good idea?
> >
> does setting MBAR really fix anything?
>
> MBAR doesn't live up to its name. It's a general-purpose scratch
> register - the hardware doesn't do anything with it. So, wrt
Kim is right.
MBAR setting is added by two years ago, it is not really fix anything.
I set the MBAR to be easier to use the CodeWarriror. The CodeWarrior
must set the MBAR first, then it will be able to access the IMMR.
Dave
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* RE: [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR
2007-08-02 2:14 ` Liu Dave-r63238
@ 2007-08-02 2:34 ` Alfred Manheim
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Alfred Manheim @ 2007-08-02 2:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Liu Dave-r63238', 'Phillips Kim-R1AAHA',
'Keith Mund'
Cc: linuxppc-dev, u-boot-users
This was to the wrong group.
Thanks for the responses and the clarification. The "needed for CodeWarrior
only" part is what I suspected.
Keith Mund
-----Original Message-----
From: linuxppc-dev-bounces+alfman=austin.rr.com@ozlabs.org
[mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+alfman=austin.rr.com@ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of
Liu Dave-r63238
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:15 PM
To: Phillips Kim-R1AAHA; Keith Mund
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; u-boot-users@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR
> > The end result simply adds a line to set MBAR to match IMMRBAR.
> >
> > lis r3, CFG_IMMRBAR@h
> > ori r3, r3, CFG_IMMRBAR@l
> > stw r3, IMMRBAR(r4)
> > + mtspr MBAR, r3
> >
> > Are these patches routinely added to the mainstream u-boot code?
> >
> > Is there any reason why this fix is not a good idea?
> >
> does setting MBAR really fix anything?
>
> MBAR doesn't live up to its name. It's a general-purpose scratch
> register - the hardware doesn't do anything with it. So, wrt
Kim is right.
MBAR setting is added by two years ago, it is not really fix anything.
I set the MBAR to be easier to use the CodeWarriror. The CodeWarrior must
set the MBAR first, then it will be able to access the IMMR.
Dave
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR
@ 2007-08-02 2:34 ` Alfred Manheim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Alfred Manheim @ 2007-08-02 2:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
This was to the wrong group.
Thanks for the responses and the clarification. The "needed for CodeWarrior
only" part is what I suspected.
Keith Mund
-----Original Message-----
From: linuxppc-dev-bounces+alfman=austin.rr.com@ozlabs.org
[mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+alfman=austin.rr.com at ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of
Liu Dave-r63238
Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2007 9:15 PM
To: Phillips Kim-R1AAHA; Keith Mund
Cc: linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org; u-boot-users at lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR
> > The end result simply adds a line to set MBAR to match IMMRBAR.
> >
> > lis r3, CFG_IMMRBAR at h
> > ori r3, r3, CFG_IMMRBAR at l
> > stw r3, IMMRBAR(r4)
> > + mtspr MBAR, r3
> >
> > Are these patches routinely added to the mainstream u-boot code?
> >
> > Is there any reason why this fix is not a good idea?
> >
> does setting MBAR really fix anything?
>
> MBAR doesn't live up to its name. It's a general-purpose scratch
> register - the hardware doesn't do anything with it. So, wrt
Kim is right.
MBAR setting is added by two years ago, it is not really fix anything.
I set the MBAR to be easier to use the CodeWarriror. The CodeWarrior must
set the MBAR first, then it will be able to access the IMMR.
Dave
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR
2007-08-02 2:14 ` Liu Dave-r63238
@ 2007-08-02 15:28 ` Scott Wood
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Scott Wood @ 2007-08-02 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Liu Dave-r63238; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, Phillips Kim-R1AAHA, u-boot-users
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:14:31AM +0800, Liu Dave-r63238 wrote:
> > MBAR doesn't live up to its name. It's a general-purpose scratch
> > register - the hardware doesn't do anything with it. So, wrt
That doesn't mean there isn't value in setting it, so code can easily
find the IMMR without having to parse the device tree.
-Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR
@ 2007-08-02 15:28 ` Scott Wood
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Scott Wood @ 2007-08-02 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:14:31AM +0800, Liu Dave-r63238 wrote:
> > MBAR doesn't live up to its name. It's a general-purpose scratch
> > register - the hardware doesn't do anything with it. So, wrt
That doesn't mean there isn't value in setting it, so code can easily
find the IMMR without having to parse the device tree.
-Scott
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* Re: [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR
2007-08-02 15:28 ` Scott Wood
@ 2007-08-02 16:12 ` Kumar Gala
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2007-08-02 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Scott Wood
Cc: linuxppc-dev, Phillips Kim-R1AAHA, Liu Dave-r63238, u-boot-users
On Aug 2, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:14:31AM +0800, Liu Dave-r63238 wrote:
>>> MBAR doesn't live up to its name. It's a general-purpose scratch
>>> register - the hardware doesn't do anything with it. So, wrt
>
> That doesn't mean there isn't value in setting it, so code can easily
> find the IMMR without having to parse the device tree.
It could be, but there isn't really any value in doing this since its
in the device-tree and we have to find it for 85xx, 86xx, and pretty
much all our parts.
- k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR
@ 2007-08-02 16:12 ` Kumar Gala
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Kumar Gala @ 2007-08-02 16:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: u-boot
On Aug 2, 2007, at 10:28 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 10:14:31AM +0800, Liu Dave-r63238 wrote:
>>> MBAR doesn't live up to its name. It's a general-purpose scratch
>>> register - the hardware doesn't do anything with it. So, wrt
>
> That doesn't mean there isn't value in setting it, so code can easily
> find the IMMR without having to parse the device tree.
It could be, but there isn't really any value in doing this since its
in the device-tree and we have to find it for 85xx, 86xx, and pretty
much all our parts.
- k
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update
@ 2007-08-21 16:57 ` Adrian Bunk
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Adrian Bunk @ 2007-08-21 16:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Morton, Paul Mackerras; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, linux-kernel
From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
arch/ppc/.gitignore shouldn't exclude arch/ppc/boot/include
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
---
--- a/arch/ppc/.gitignore
+++ b/arch/ppc/.gitignore
@@ -1 +1 @@
-include
+/include
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-08-22 4:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-08-01 13:30 [2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update Adrian Bunk
2007-08-01 13:53 ` Grant Likely
2007-08-01 13:53 ` Grant Likely
2007-08-01 19:06 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-08-01 19:06 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-08-01 20:20 ` MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR Keith Mund
2007-08-02 0:20 ` Kim Phillips
2007-08-02 0:20 ` [U-Boot-Users] " Kim Phillips
2007-08-02 2:14 ` Liu Dave-r63238
2007-08-02 2:14 ` Liu Dave-r63238
2007-08-02 2:34 ` Alfred Manheim
2007-08-02 2:34 ` Alfred Manheim
2007-08-02 15:28 ` Scott Wood
2007-08-02 15:28 ` Scott Wood
2007-08-02 16:12 ` Kumar Gala
2007-08-02 16:12 ` Kumar Gala
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2007-08-21 16:57 [2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update Adrian Bunk
2007-08-21 16:57 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-08-22 4:54 ` Paul Mackerras
2007-08-22 4:54 ` Paul Mackerras
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.