[2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update

[2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update

[Adrian Bunk]

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

Re: [2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update

[Grant Likely]

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

Re: [2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update

[Adrian Bunk]

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

MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR

[Keith Mund]

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?

Re: MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR

[Kim Phillips]

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

RE: [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR

[Liu Dave-r63238]

> > 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

RE: [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR

[Alfred Manheim]

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

Re: [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR

[Scott Wood]

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

Re: [U-Boot-Users] MPC83xx - previous patch to set MBAR

[Kumar Gala]

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

[2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update

[Adrian Bunk]

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

Re: [2.6 patch] ppc .gitignore update

[Paul Mackerras]

Adrian Bunk writes:
> From: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
> 
> arch/ppc/.gitignore shouldn't exclude arch/ppc/boot/include

Already in my for-2.6.24 and master branches.

Paul.