From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.ozlabs.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 886AAB7066 for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:14:59 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail.lixom.net (lixom.net [66.141.50.11]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E1C4DDD0B for ; Tue, 7 Jul 2009 18:14:58 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 03:20:12 -0500 From: Olof Johansson To: Michael Ellerman Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/mpic: Fix MPIC_BROKEN_REGREAD on non broken MPICs Message-ID: <20090707082011.GA21670@lixom.net> References: <6c9c0889feaceeea55bd2b6fef0c19e408425ef5.1246846125.git.michael@ellerman.id.au> <20090706135926.GA16205@lixom.net> <1246926753.4449.1.camel@concordia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1246926753.4449.1.camel@concordia> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:32:33AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote: > I was also wondering, was this workaround ever required in a released > chip - or was it just dev samples? If it's the latter, do we still need > to carry it at all? It's needed on all versions of hardware but for slightly different reasons. I had to research it when the discussion came up, since the first time I used this workaround it was needed for a different erratum. But yes, it is there in shipping products -- I was usually pretty careful not to merge unneeded patches. -Olof