From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mailhub1.si.c-s.fr (pegase1.c-s.fr [93.17.236.30]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6C502C039E for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2013 15:57:29 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <523157C6.4010404@c-s.fr> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 07:57:26 +0200 From: leroy christophe MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Wood Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc 8xx: Fixing issue with CONFIG_PIN_TLB References: <201309111644.r8BGiuDZ016325@localhost.localdomain> <1378939017.12204.409.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <1378944911.4066.12.camel@pasglop> In-Reply-To: <1378944911.4066.12.camel@pasglop> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Cc: Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Le 12/09/2013 02:15, Benjamin Herrenschmidt a écrit : > 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. > > Scott, you're right, I didn't see that other consequence. I'll come with a more complete patch this afternoon. Thanks