From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3B422C0207 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:15:51 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <1378944911.4066.12.camel@pasglop> Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc 8xx: Fixing issue with CONFIG_PIN_TLB From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Scott Wood Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 10:15:11 +1000 In-Reply-To: <1378939017.12204.409.camel@snotra.buserror.net> References: <201309111644.r8BGiuDZ016325@localhost.localdomain> <1378939017.12204.409.camel@snotra.buserror.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Christophe Leroy , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2013-09-11 at 17:36 -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > I wonder why we don't start from entry 31 so we can actually make use of > that autodecrement. What will happen when we load the first normal TLB > entry later on? I don't see any setting of SPRN_MD_CTR after this code, > so won't it overwrite entry 30 (the middle 8M) in the CONFIG_PIN_TLB > case? > > Ben, would patches like this be considered bugfixes as far as merging > goes, or would they be for next given that it's something that's never > really worked right and hasn't been touched in years? Since they don't affect anything outside of 8xx, I'm happy to take them until around -rc2 or 3. But it's your call really. Cheers, Ben.