Patches for 2.6.15

Patches for 2.6.15

[Paul Mackerras]

If anyone has patches for arch/ppc{,64} and include/asm-ppc{,64} that
they would like to see go upstream now that 2.6.14 is out, other than
patches that are already in the powerpc-merge tree, please let me
know.  I am planning to ask Linus to pull the powerpc-merge tree
shortly, and that will probably break your patches.

I think the merge tree is looking pretty good, although the merge is
by no means complete yet.  The powermac, pseries and iseries platforms
seem to be working fine with ARCH=powerpc.  32-bit chrp is mostly
there but needs a bit more work.

If possible, I'd like to get to the point where we can remove
arch/ppc64 entirely by the end of the 2-week merge window for 2.6.15.

Paul.

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Christopher Friesen]

Paul Mackerras wrote:

> If possible, I'd like to get to the point where we can remove
> arch/ppc64 entirely by the end of the 2-week merge window for 2.6.15.

I haven't been following this seriously, so forgive me if this has 
already been asked.

Under the unified architecture, what is the machine type in the "uname" 
outout?

Chris

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Matt Porter]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 11:05:25PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> If anyone has patches for arch/ppc{,64} and include/asm-ppc{,64} that
> they would like to see go upstream now that 2.6.14 is out, other than
> patches that are already in the powerpc-merge tree, please let me
> know.  I am planning to ask Linus to pull the powerpc-merge tree
> shortly, and that will probably break your patches.

Ok, we have a set of 4xx patches that I plan to send to Andrew.
They are some existing 4xx SoC/board updates as well as a new
SoC/board. They are obviously mostly confined to the 4xx code paths
but there's likely conflicts in changes to Makefiles, etc.

Would you prefer these going upstream before or after the 
powerpc-merge pull?

-Matt

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Andreas Schwab]

"Christopher Friesen" <cfriesen@nortel.com> writes:

> Under the unified architecture, what is the machine type in the "uname" 
> outout?

I don't think that should change in any way.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Kumar Gala]

On Oct 28, 2005, at 11:00 AM, Christopher Friesen wrote:

> Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
>
>> If possible, I'd like to get to the point where we can remove
>> arch/ppc64 entirely by the end of the 2-week merge window for 2.6.15.
>>
>
> I haven't been following this seriously, so forgive me if this has  
> already been asked.
>
> Under the unified architecture, what is the machine type in the  
> "uname" outout?

When building the merge tree for a 32-bit cpu uname spits out:

Linux fred 2.6.14-rc5-g278144ed #9 Thu Oct 27 09:20:01 CDT 2005 ppc  
unknown


- kumar

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Kumar Gala]

On Oct 28, 2005, at 12:30 PM, Matt Porter wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 11:05:25PM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
>
>> If anyone has patches for arch/ppc{,64} and include/asm-ppc{,64} that
>> they would like to see go upstream now that 2.6.14 is out, other than
>> patches that are already in the powerpc-merge tree, please let me
>> know.  I am planning to ask Linus to pull the powerpc-merge tree
>> shortly, and that will probably break your patches.
>>
>
> Ok, we have a set of 4xx patches that I plan to send to Andrew.
> They are some existing 4xx SoC/board updates as well as a new
> SoC/board. They are obviously mostly confined to the 4xx code paths
> but there's likely conflicts in changes to Makefiles, etc.
>
> Would you prefer these going upstream before or after the
> powerpc-merge pull?

Can we ask Andrew to flush any ppc patches in -mm to linus before we  
have Linus pull the merge tree.

The following are patches that should probably go to linus before the  
merge tree that exist in 2.6.14-rc5-mm1:

(I may have missed some, but these where the obvious ones)

+ppc32-85xx-phy-platform-update.patch
+ppc32-ppc_sys-fixes-for-8xx-and-82xx.patch

  ppc32 updates

+various-powerpc-32bit-ppc64-build-fixes.patch
+ppc64-reenable-make-install-with-defconfig.patch
+ppc64-change-name-of-target-file-during-make-install.patch
+ppc64-remove-duplicate-local-variable-in-set_preferred_console.patch

- kumar

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Kumar Gala]

On Oct 28, 2005, at 8:05 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote:

> If anyone has patches for arch/ppc{,64} and include/asm-ppc{,64} that
> they would like to see go upstream now that 2.6.14 is out, other than
> patches that are already in the powerpc-merge tree, please let me
> know.  I am planning to ask Linus to pull the powerpc-merge tree
> shortly, and that will probably break your patches.
>
> I think the merge tree is looking pretty good, although the merge is
> by no means complete yet.  The powermac, pseries and iseries platforms
> seem to be working fine with ARCH=powerpc.  32-bit chrp is mostly
> there but needs a bit more work.
>
> If possible, I'd like to get to the point where we can remove
> arch/ppc64 entirely by the end of the 2-week merge window for 2.6.15.

Can you merge this in:

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=2931

- kumar

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Andrew Morton]

Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@freescale.com> wrote:
>
> Can we ask Andrew to flush any ppc patches in -mm to linus before we  
>  have Linus pull the merge tree.

Well I'd prefer that ;)

Paul?

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Freedag 28 Oktober 2005 15:05, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> If anyone has patches for arch/ppc{,64} and include/asm-ppc{,64} that
> they would like to see go upstream now that 2.6.14 is out, other than
> patches that are already in the powerpc-merge tree, please let me
> know. =A0I am planning to ask Linus to pull the powerpc-merge tree
> shortly, and that will probably break your patches.

Out of my spufs patches, I'd like to have at least the reservation
for my two system call numbers in there so we don't get any conflicts
on that front. The patch follows in another mail.

=46rom my point of view, the spufs itself could go in at this point,
but I have the feeling that the real concerns from other people
will come up at the moment that I post them for inclusion.=20

Andrew, are you ok with including spufs in -mm when the merge
tree is upstream?

> If possible, I'd like to get to the point where we can remove
> arch/ppc64 entirely by the end of the 2-week merge window for 2.6.15.

Ok, I'll do a new patch to move over the BPA files then to get
my stuff out of the way ASAP.

	Arnd <><

[PATCH] reserve syscall numbers for Cell

[Arnd Bergmann]

This creates two powerpc specific dummy system calls that will
later be used on the Cell platform to manage SPUs.

Reserve the system call numbers now so we don't accidentally
use the same numbers for different system calls.

Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arndb@de.ibm.com>

---
Please apply to merge tree

--- a/kernel/sys_ni.c	2005-10-29 00:46:21.000000000 +0200
+++ b/kernel/sys_ni.c	2005-10-29 00:47:37.000000000 +0200
@@ -90,3 +90,5 @@
 cond_syscall(sys32_ipc);
 cond_syscall(sys32_sysctl);
 cond_syscall(ppc_rtas);
+cond_syscall(sys_spu_run);
+cond_syscall(sys_spu_create);
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/systbl.S	2005-10-29 00:39:49.000000000 +0200
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/systbl.S	2005-10-29 00:44:48.000000000 +0200
@@ -319,3 +319,5 @@
 SYSCALL(inotify_init)
 SYSCALL(inotify_add_watch)
 SYSCALL(inotify_rm_watch)
+SYSCALL(spu_run)
+SYSCALL(spu_create)
--- a/include/asm-powerpc/unistd.h	2005-10-29 00:34:40.000000000 +0200
+++ b/include/asm-powerpc/unistd.h	2005-10-29 00:35:52.000000000 +0200
@@ -297,7 +297,9 @@
 #define __NR_inotify_add_watch	276
 #define __NR_inotify_rm_watch	277

-#define __NR_syscalls		278
+#define __NR_spu_run		278
+#define __NR_spu_create		279
+#define __NR_syscalls		280
 
 #ifdef __KERNEL__
 #define __NR__exit __NR_exit

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Andrew Morton]

Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> Andrew, are you ok with including spufs in -mm when the merge
> tree is upstream?

Probably.  I haven't paid much attention to them thus far, sorry.

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Paul Mackerras]

Christopher Friesen writes:

> Under the unified architecture, what is the machine type in the "uname" 
> outout?

"ppc" on 32-bit machines, "ppc64" on 64-bit machines, same as before.

The intention is that the merge doesn't change the user/kernel ABI in
any way. :)

Paul.

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Paul Mackerras]

Andrew Morton writes:

> Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@freescale.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can we ask Andrew to flush any ppc patches in -mm to linus before we  
> >  have Linus pull the merge tree.
> 
> Well I'd prefer that ;)

My concern is that if we do that we may end up losing some of the
changes from Andrew's patches when the merge goes in and/or creating a
nasty, difficult merge.

Probably the best thing is if I take the patches and apply them on top
of the merge tree (hacking them as necessary) and then get Linus to
pull.

Andrew, will I just grab the ones you listed from the latest -mm, or
will you send them to me?

Paul.

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Andrew Morton]

Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
>
>  Andrew, will I just grab the ones you listed from the latest -mm, or
>  will you send them to me?

I'll mail them all over.

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Paul Mackerras]

Andrew Morton writes:

> I'll mail them all over.

Got them, thanks.  I'm going to drop 06, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, and
37 for now.  The rest I have committed to the powerpc-merge tree.

The reasons for dropping them are:

06 - need to discuss the specifics of the patch with Marcelo
12, 13 - going through netdev tree
18 - it seems there is still ongoing discussion about whether this is
     the best approach
19, 20, 21 - BenH's SMU stuff, which he told me he would rebase on
     top of the merge tree
37 - I want the patch done a little differently

Regards,
Paul.

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Andrew Morton]

Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org> wrote:
>
> Andrew Morton writes:
> 
> > I'll mail them all over.
> 
> Got them, thanks.  I'm going to drop 06, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, and
> 37 for now.  The rest I have committed to the powerpc-merge tree.
> 
> The reasons for dropping them are:
> 
> 06 - need to discuss the specifics of the patch with Marcelo
> 12, 13 - going through netdev tree
> 18 - it seems there is still ongoing discussion about whether this is
>      the best approach
> 19, 20, 21 - BenH's SMU stuff, which he told me he would rebase on
>      top of the merge tree
> 37 - I want the patch done a little differently

OK, well I'll probably drop all those patches as well - hopefully all the
originators know what's going on and nothing will fall through a crack.

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Stephen Rothwell]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 359 bytes --]

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:49:26 -0500 Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@freescale.com> wrote:
>
> Can you merge this in:
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=2931

I can't find any use of mpc85xx_show_cpuinfo.  Is there something subtle here?

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell                    sfr@canb.auug.org.au
http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[galak]

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Stephen Rothwell wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:49:26 -0500 Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@freescale.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can you merge this in:
> > 
> > http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=2931
> 
> I can't find any use of mpc85xx_show_cpuinfo.  Is there something subtle here?

No, you are correct.  This was a bogus decleration before.  I will kill 
it and resend the patch.

- kumar

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Paul Mackerras]

Matt Porter writes:

> Ok, we have a set of 4xx patches that I plan to send to Andrew.
> They are some existing 4xx SoC/board updates as well as a new
> SoC/board. They are obviously mostly confined to the 4xx code paths
> but there's likely conflicts in changes to Makefiles, etc.
> 
> Would you prefer these going upstream before or after the 
> powerpc-merge pull?

Did you send them yet?  Linus has pulled the powerpc-merge tree, as
I'm sure you've noticed.

Paul.

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Paul Mackerras]

Kumar Gala writes:

> Can you merge this in:
> 
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/linuxppc/patch?id=2931

Having the same extern declaration in several C files raises a red
flag.  Could we have that in a suitable header file instead please?

Paul.

Re: Patches for 2.6.15

[Matt Porter]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 04:53:37PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Matt Porter writes:
> 
> > Ok, we have a set of 4xx patches that I plan to send to Andrew.
> > They are some existing 4xx SoC/board updates as well as a new
> > SoC/board. They are obviously mostly confined to the 4xx code paths
> > but there's likely conflicts in changes to Makefiles, etc.
> > 
> > Would you prefer these going upstream before or after the 
> > powerpc-merge pull?
> 
> Did you send them yet?  Linus has pulled the powerpc-merge tree, as
> I'm sure you've noticed.

Yes I did. I saw the merge go into mainline and rebased what was
necessary off of that.  Andrew now has them queued up for Linus so
we are set. BTW, we're starting to look at merging 4xx to arch/powerpc/
now.

-Matt