From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.177]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63991DE040 for ; Tue, 6 May 2008 22:47:41 +1000 (EST) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id n7so1054500wag.13 for ; Tue, 06 May 2008 05:47:40 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9e4733910805060547m51b5de42m52ebab9161f5d750@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 08:47:40 -0400 From: "Jon Smirl" To: "Sascha Hauer" Subject: Re: [PATCH] add Phytec pcm030 board support In-Reply-To: <20080506080811.GB4326@pengutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <20080425134805.GP6692@pengutronix.de> <9e4733910805051001h2c02fd57yb246091af8bf5a7d@mail.gmail.com> <9e4733910805051022q7c2f868bw80173fd93e92b907@mail.gmail.com> <20080506080811.GB4326@pengutronix.de> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 5/6/08, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 01:22:40PM -0400, Jon Smirl wrote: > > On 5/5/08, Grant Likely wrote: > > > On Mon, May 5, 2008 at 11:01 AM, Jon Smirl wrote: > > > > Did this get fixed somehow? I used to need this to boot a pcm030. > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry; I'm at a lost as to context. Are you asking for this patch > > > to be applied? Or are you asking if this has been addressed in > > > another way? > > > > Sascha said the pcm030 was working with the simple dts. I always > > needed that patch to get a pcm030 to boot. Sasha's company wrote the > > patch. I'm just wondering how it got handled, do we still need the > > patch or did he come up with some other solution. > > > Yes, it is working with the simple dts except for the flash support. For > this we need the Flash description in the oftree. > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/jffs2/scan.c b/fs/jffs2/scan.c > > > > index 272872d..c982adc 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/jffs2/scan.c > > > > +++ b/fs/jffs2/scan.c > > > > @@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ > > > > #include > > > > #include > > > > #include > > > > +#include > > > > #include "nodelist.h" > > > > #include "summary.h" > > > > #include "debug.h" > > > > @@ -505,7 +506,7 @@ static int jffs2_scan_eraseblock (struct > > > > jffs2_sb_info *c, struct jffs2_eraseblo > > > > sumptr = kmalloc(sumlen, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > if (!sumptr) > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > - memcpy(sumptr + sumlen - > > > > buf_len, buf + buf_size - buf_len, buf_len); > > > > + memcpy_fromio(sumptr + sumlen > > > > - buf_len, buf + buf_size - buf_len, buf_len); > > > > } > > > > if (buf_len < sumlen) { > > > > /* Need to read more so that > > > > the entire summary node is present */ > > > > @@ -1035,7 +1036,7 @@ static int jffs2_scan_dirent_node(struct > > > > jffs2_sb_info *c, struct jffs2_eraseblo > > > > if (!fd) { > > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > } > > > > - memcpy(&fd->name, rd->name, checkedlen); > > > > + memcpy_fromio(&fd->name, rd->name, checkedlen); > > > This patch is needed because memcpy uses unaligned accesses whereas > memcpy_fromio only uses aligned accesses on the io side. See this > thread: http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/2006-April/022544.html Can you submit it for inclusion? That's the last thing needed to boot a pcm030 on a standard kernel, right? -- Jon Smirl jonsmirl@gmail.com