From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:56:07 -0700 Message-ID: <20130327205606.GN10155@atomide.com> References: <517283541.62064.1362124023621.JavaMail.apache@mail81.abv.bg> <20130306175120.GP11806@atomide.com> <201303062013.16302@pali> <201303241526.59275@pali> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:42045 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751475Ab3C0U4N (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:56:13 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201303241526.59275@pali> Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= Cc: Nishanth Menon , =?utf-8?B?0JjQstCw0LnQu9C+INCU0LjQvNC40YLRgNC+0LI=?= , linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org * Pali Roh=C3=A1r [130324 07:31]: > it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters seems like it should be generic. Regards, Tony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:56:07 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround In-Reply-To: <201303241526.59275@pali> References: <517283541.62064.1362124023621.JavaMail.apache@mail81.abv.bg> <20130306175120.GP11806@atomide.com> <201303062013.16302@pali> <201303241526.59275@pali> Message-ID: <20130327205606.GN10155@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Pali Roh?r [130324 07:31]: > it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters seems like it should be generic. Regards, Tony From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754507Ab3C0XVF (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:21:05 -0400 Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org ([204.13.248.72]:53953 "EHLO mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751804Ab3C0XVD (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:21:03 -0400 X-Mail-Handler: Dyn Standard SMTP by Dyn X-Originating-IP: 50.131.214.131 X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/sendlabs/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information) X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1+QI35r8QVK+j71vaMqOria Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:56:07 -0700 From: Tony Lindgren To: Pali =?utf-8?B?Um9ow6Fy?= Cc: Nishanth Menon , =?utf-8?B?0JjQstCw0LnQu9C+INCU0LjQvNC40YLRgNC+0LI=?= , linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: omap: RX-51: ARM errata 430973 workaround Message-ID: <20130327205606.GN10155@atomide.com> References: <517283541.62064.1362124023621.JavaMail.apache@mail81.abv.bg> <20130306175120.GP11806@atomide.com> <201303062013.16302@pali> <201303241526.59275@pali> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <201303241526.59275@pali> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Pali Rohár [130324 07:31]: > it is possible to upstream errata 430973 workaround for RX-51? I think we should make the SMC handling a generic function for ARM. AFAIK just the SMC call numbering is different for various implementations. So the handler and passing of the parameters seems like it should be generic. Regards, Tony