* MPC5200 Cache issue with Bestcomm
From: Amir Bukhari @ 2005-12-22 15:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded
Sorry this question is not related to linux kernel, but I can't find any
sources which I can find any tipps for the issue I encoured.
I write a standalone application with TCP stack (I use lwip stack). I am
want to enable the cache to increase performance of my application.
------------------------
Here is my configuration of various registers:
#define CORE_HID0_INIT 0x8010C000
#define CORE_HID2_INIT 0x00000000
#define CORE_IBAT0U_INIT 0x000007FF
#define CORE_IBAT0L_INIT 0x00000001
#define CORE_DBAT0U_INIT 0x000007FF
#define CORE_DBAT0L_INIT 0x00000052
#define CORE_DBAT1U_INIT 0xF000000F // for MBAR
#define CORE_DBAT1L_INIT 0xF000002A // for MBAR
#define CORE_DBAT2U_INIT 0x40001FFF
#define CORE_DBAT2L_INIT 0x40000022 // for PCI
#define CORE_DBAT3U_INIT 0x50001FFF //
#define CORE_DBAT3L_INIT 0x50000022 //
XLARB configuration is :
#define XLARB_CONFIG_INIT 0x8000A006 // snoop window is
enabled
#define XLARB_PRIORITY_ENABLE_INIT 0x0000000F
#define XLARB_PRIORITY_INIT 0x11111010
#define XLARB_SNOOP_WINDOW_INIT 0x00000019 // base address is =
0
and 64Mbytes length
----------------
Now as soon as I enable cache the Bestcomm doesn't stop firing me a =
ethernet
packet receive. It doesn't stop this and this let my system hangs up. =
When
running the system without cache every thing work well.
I will be happy if someone can give me a tipp if I may missed something!
-Amir
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: AW: Kernel cmdline
From: Kumar Gala @ 2005-12-22 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: achim.machura; +Cc: Linuxppc-Embedded (E-Mail), 'Jenkins, Clive'
In-Reply-To: <001f01c6070d$649e8f00$34f1ff0a@beint.local>
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:35 AM, Achim Machura wrote:
>
>> Yes. Look at:
>> http://lxr.linux.no/source/init/main.c?v=2.6.10;a=ppc#L123
>> Clive
>
> Thanks,
>
> but this exaple seems to work only with modules staticly linked
> into the
> kernel.
>
> I' ve to parse the commandline in a dynamic loaded modul.
Why would you want to do this. Anyways, the cmd_line is to exported
to modules. You can provide modules there own params
- kumar
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC] genalloc != generic DEVICE memory allocator
From: Andrey Volkov @ 2005-12-22 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pantelis Antoniou; +Cc: Andrew Morton, jes, linux-kernel, linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <43AAB508.7000007@intracom.gr>
Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Andrey Volkov wrote:
>
>> Hi Pantelis,
>>
>> Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>>
>>> Andrey Volkov wrote:
>>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>>
>>> Hi Andrey,
>>>
>>> FYI, on arch/ppc/lib/rheap.c theres an implementation of a remote heap.
>>>
>>> It is currently used for the management of freescale's CPM1 & CPM2
>>> internal
>>> dual port RAM.
>>>
>>> Take a look, it might be what you have in mind.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Pantelis
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks I missed it (and small wonder! :( ).
>>
>> Andrew, Is somebody count HOW MANY dev specific implementation
>> of buddy/first-fit allocators now in kernel?
>>
>
> Yes, it is indeed messy.
>
> The rheap implementation is generic enough and I believe can fit most of
> the
> special memory allocators needs. If you'd like I could move it somewhere
> generic and test it.
>
I'm sure lib/ will be appropriate place. and something like
"DON'T TRY REINVENT WHEEL, TRY FIX EXISTS" in documentation/ :).
Now couple word about rheap: I understand why you are use static
alignment in allocator, but its very specialized for CPM. IMO, align
must be a param of xx_alloc. For ex: device may demand alignment by
8 bytes, which ok until... you are try map this memory to the user
space (don't shoot at me, remember about framebuffer & co).
--
Regards
Andrey Volkov
^ permalink raw reply
* console problem on 8247
From: srideep.devireddy @ 2005-12-22 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2448 bytes --]
HI ,
i am trying to use Ram disk with my mpc8247 board and compiled both the linux kernel image and the ramdisk image and tried to load it on to the board when i try doing this i am getting a familiar error which is know to all hangs after uncompressing linux kernel ... actually so please do tell me what might be the problem as we are using SMC as the console .
=> bootm 100000 b00000
## Booting image at 00100000 ...
Image Name: Linux-2.4.20_mvl31-8272ads
Image Type: PowerPC Linux Kernel Image (gzip compressed)
Data Size: 680207 Bytes = 664.3 kB
Load Address: 00000000
Entry Point: 00000000
Verifying Checksum ... OK
Uncompressing Kernel Image ... OK
## Current stack ends at 0x0FBC18D8 => set upper limit to 0x00800000
## cmdline at 0x007FFF00 ... 0x007FFF49
bd address = 0x0FBC1BB4
memstart = 0x00000000
memsize = 0x10000000
flashstart = 0xFE000000
flashsize = 0x02000000
flashoffset = 0x00000000
sramstart = 0x00000000
sramsize = 0x00000000
immr_base = 0xF0000000
bootflags = 0x00000001
vco = 396 MHz
sccfreq = 99 MHz
brgfreq = 24.750 MHz
intfreq = 264 MHz
cpmfreq = 198 MHz
busfreq = 66 MHz
ethaddr = 00:11:22:33:44:55
IP addr = 192.168.80.196
baudrate = 115200 bps
## Loading RAMDisk Image at 00b00000 ...
Image Name: uImage.ramdisk
Image Type: PowerPC Linux RAMDisk Image (gzip compressed)
Data Size: 1827099 Bytes = 1.7 MB
Load Address: 00000000
Entry Point: 00000000
Verifying Checksum ... OK
## initrd at 0x00B00040 ... 0x00CBE15A (len=1827099=0x1BE11B)
Loading Ramdisk to 0fa02000, end 0fbc011b ... OK
## Transferring control to Linux (at address 00000000) ...
The information contained in this electronic message and any attachments to this message are intended for the exclusive use of the addressee(s) and may contain proprietary, confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately and destroy all copies of this message and any attachments.
WARNING: Computer viruses can be transmitted via email. The recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.
www.wipro.com
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3891 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* AW: Kernel cmdline
From: Achim Machura @ 2005-12-22 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Jenkins, Clive'; +Cc: Linuxppc-Embedded (E-Mail)
In-Reply-To: <35786B99AB3FDC45A8215724617919736D91B7@gbrwgceumf01.eu.xerox.net>
> Yes. Look at:
> http://lxr.linux.no/source/init/main.c?v=2.6.10;a=ppc#L123
> Clive
Thanks,
but this exaple seems to work only with modules staticly linked into the
kernel.
I' ve to parse the commandline in a dynamic loaded modul.
Achim
^ permalink raw reply
* RE: Kernel cmdline
From: Jenkins, Clive @ 2005-12-22 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: achim.machura, Linuxppc-Embedded (E-Mail)
> From: linuxppc-embedded-bounces@ozlabs.org
[mailto:linuxppc-embedded-bounces@ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Achim Machura
> Sent: 22 December 2005 13:48
> To: Linuxppc-Embedded (E-Mail)
> Subject: Kernel cmdline
>
>
> Hello,
>
> is the a posibility to read (parse) the cmdline in a driver, similar
to cat
> /proc/cmdline ?
>
> best regards
>
> Achim
Yes. Look at:
http://lxr.linux.no/source/init/main.c?v=3D2.6.10;a=3Dppc#L123
Clive
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC] genalloc != generic DEVICE memory allocator
From: Pantelis Antoniou @ 2005-12-22 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrey Volkov; +Cc: Andrew Morton, jes, linux-kernel, linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <43AAAEA2.8030200@varma-el.com>
Andrey Volkov wrote:
> Hi Pantelis,
>
> Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
>
>>Andrey Volkov wrote:
>>
[snip]
>>
>>Hi Andrey,
>>
>>FYI, on arch/ppc/lib/rheap.c theres an implementation of a remote heap.
>>
>>It is currently used for the management of freescale's CPM1 & CPM2 internal
>>dual port RAM.
>>
>>Take a look, it might be what you have in mind.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Pantelis
>
>
> Thanks I missed it (and small wonder! :( ).
>
> Andrew, Is somebody count HOW MANY dev specific implementation
> of buddy/first-fit allocators now in kernel?
>
Yes, it is indeed messy.
The rheap implementation is generic enough and I believe can fit most of the
special memory allocators needs. If you'd like I could move it somewhere
generic and test it.
Regards
Pantelis
^ permalink raw reply
* Kernel cmdline
From: Achim Machura @ 2005-12-22 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Linuxppc-Embedded (E-Mail)
Hello,
is the a posibility to read (parse) the cmdline in a driver, similar to cat
/proc/cmdline ?
best regards
Achim
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC] genalloc != generic DEVICE memory allocator
From: Andrey Volkov @ 2005-12-22 13:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Pantelis Antoniou; +Cc: Andrew Morton, jes, linux-kernel, linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <43AA65F4.10409@intracom.gr>
Hi Pantelis,
Pantelis Antoniou wrote:
> Andrey Volkov wrote:
>
>> Hello Jes and all
>>
>> I try to use your allocator (gen_pool_xxx), idea of which
>> is a cute nice thing. But current implementation of it is
>> inappropriate for a _device_ (aka onchip, like framebuffer) memory
>> allocation, by next reasons:
>>
>> 1) Device memory is expensive resource by access time and/or size cost.
>> So we couldn't use (usually) this memory for the free blocks lists.
>> 2) Device memory usually have special requirement of access to it
>> (alignment/special insn). So we couldn't use part of allocated
>> blocks for some control structures (this problem solved in your
>> implementation, it's common remark)
>> 3) Obvious (IMHO) workflow of mem. allocator look like:
>> - at startup time, driver allocate some big
>> (almost) static mem. chunk(s) for a control/data structures.
>> - during work of the device, driver allocate many small
>> mem. blocks with almost identical size.
>> such behavior lead to degeneration of buddy method and
>> transform it to the first/best fit method (with long seek
>> by the free node list).
>> 4) The simple binary buddy method is far away from perfect for a device
>> due to a big internal fragmentation. Especially for a
>> network/mfd devices, for which, size of allocated data very
>> often is not a power of 2.
>>
>> I start to modify your code to satisfy above demands,
>> but firstly I wish to know your, or somebody else, opinion.
>>
>> Especially I will very happy if somebody have and could
>> provide to all, some device specific memory usage statistics.
>>
>
> Hi Andrey,
>
> FYI, on arch/ppc/lib/rheap.c theres an implementation of a remote heap.
>
> It is currently used for the management of freescale's CPM1 & CPM2 internal
> dual port RAM.
>
> Take a look, it might be what you have in mind.
>
> Regards
>
> Pantelis
Thanks I missed it (and small wonder! :( ).
Andrew, Is somebody count HOW MANY dev specific implementation
of buddy/first-fit allocators now in kernel?
--
Regards
Andrey Volkov
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC] genalloc != generic DEVICE memory allocator
From: Andrey Volkov @ 2005-12-22 13:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sylvain Munaut; +Cc: Andrew Morton, jes, linux-kernel, linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <43A9B2F1.8090402@246tNt.com>
Hi Sylvain,
Sylvain Munaut wrote:
> Hi Andrey,
>
>
> Didn't I sent you the memory allocator I wrote a few month back for 5200
> SRAM ?
Yes, I receive it and currently I use it for Bestcomm, but,
as I wrote before, I also writing another driver for which I need
allocator too, and sram_xxx/gen_pool_xxx completely inappropriate for it
(since device is PCI based). Also, trust me, it will be 6th or 7th
allocator implementation what I did, its more than enough to make me
sick from allocators.
As well, IMHO, yet another allocator in kernel (currently almost each
driver for dev. with onboard dynamically allocated mem. implement
somehow or other buddy/first fit alloc) will cause yet another bugs in
kernel ALREADY FIXED in driver in the neighbourhood dir.
>
> It uses the sram itself for the free block list but without using any
> (iow, you could allocate the whole SRAM, no memory is wasted). The SRAM
> is on-chip so pretty fast access. That kind of allocator is no good for
> memory on a PCI board or such though (bad access time ! using main
> memory would be better)
>
> Sylvain
Completely agree, but - for BESTCOMM case. This is what I have in mind
when I wrote 'usually' at 1) ;). Also don't forget about storage
for size of allocated blocks (which later passed to free) - in sram_xxx
case main memory used for it indirectly (when you push constant as
param) or directly, when you are store it in data struct. So, IMO,
better use it directly and control it in one place, then try to catch
bugs with invalid size pushed to free.
>
>
> Andrey Volkov wrote:
>
>>Hello Jes and all
>>
>>I try to use your allocator (gen_pool_xxx), idea of which
>>is a cute nice thing. But current implementation of it is
>>inappropriate for a _device_ (aka onchip, like framebuffer) memory
>>allocation, by next reasons:
>>
>> 1) Device memory is expensive resource by access time and/or size cost.
>> So we couldn't use (usually) this memory for the free blocks lists.
>> 2) Device memory usually have special requirement of access to it
>> (alignment/special insn). So we couldn't use part of allocated
>> blocks for some control structures (this problem solved in your
>> implementation, it's common remark)
>> 3) Obvious (IMHO) workflow of mem. allocator look like:
>> - at startup time, driver allocate some big
>> (almost) static mem. chunk(s) for a control/data structures.
>> - during work of the device, driver allocate many small
>> mem. blocks with almost identical size.
>> such behavior lead to degeneration of buddy method and
>> transform it to the first/best fit method (with long seek
>> by the free node list).
>> 4) The simple binary buddy method is far away from perfect for a device
>> due to a big internal fragmentation. Especially for a
>> network/mfd devices, for which, size of allocated data very
>> often is not a power of 2.
>>
>>I start to modify your code to satisfy above demands,
>>but firstly I wish to know your, or somebody else, opinion.
>>
>>Especially I will very happy if somebody have and could
>>provide to all, some device specific memory usage statistics.
>>
--
Regards
Andrey Volkov
P.S. Oops, sorry for duplication, I forget insert CC in prev replay.
^ permalink raw reply
* Bridge function at Linux 2.4.25
From: 徐小威的EMAIL @ 2005-12-22 9:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded
Hi:
I used Linux 2.4.25 at my custom MPC852T board.I got some problem
after enable 802.1d bridge function.Why?
Anybody know which version of brctl is suitable for Linux 2.4.25?(I
used bridge-utils-1.0.6.)
NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth1: transmit timed out
eth1: transmit timed out.
Ring data dump: cur_tx c30bd100, tx_free 0, dirty_tx c30bd100, cur_rx
c30bd000
tx: 16 buffers
c30bd100: 9c00 003c 01ba5a70
c30bd108: 9c00 003c 01ba5b70
c30bd110: 9c00 003c 01ba5c70
c30bd118: 9c00 003c 01ba5d70
c30bd120: 9c00 0071 01ba5e70
c30bd128: 9c00 006e 00880080
c30bd130: 9c00 0076 00880180
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC] genalloc != generic DEVICE memory allocator
From: Pantelis Antoniou @ 2005-12-22 8:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrey Volkov; +Cc: Andrew Morton, jes, linux-kernel, linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <43A98F90.9010001@varma-el.com>
Andrey Volkov wrote:
> Hello Jes and all
>
> I try to use your allocator (gen_pool_xxx), idea of which
> is a cute nice thing. But current implementation of it is
> inappropriate for a _device_ (aka onchip, like framebuffer) memory
> allocation, by next reasons:
>
> 1) Device memory is expensive resource by access time and/or size cost.
> So we couldn't use (usually) this memory for the free blocks lists.
> 2) Device memory usually have special requirement of access to it
> (alignment/special insn). So we couldn't use part of allocated
> blocks for some control structures (this problem solved in your
> implementation, it's common remark)
> 3) Obvious (IMHO) workflow of mem. allocator look like:
> - at startup time, driver allocate some big
> (almost) static mem. chunk(s) for a control/data structures.
> - during work of the device, driver allocate many small
> mem. blocks with almost identical size.
> such behavior lead to degeneration of buddy method and
> transform it to the first/best fit method (with long seek
> by the free node list).
> 4) The simple binary buddy method is far away from perfect for a device
> due to a big internal fragmentation. Especially for a
> network/mfd devices, for which, size of allocated data very
> often is not a power of 2.
>
> I start to modify your code to satisfy above demands,
> but firstly I wish to know your, or somebody else, opinion.
>
> Especially I will very happy if somebody have and could
> provide to all, some device specific memory usage statistics.
>
Hi Andrey,
FYI, on arch/ppc/lib/rheap.c theres an implementation of a remote heap.
It is currently used for the management of freescale's CPM1 & CPM2 internal
dual port RAM.
Take a look, it might be what you have in mind.
Regards
Pantelis
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem
From: Alessandro Zummo @ 2005-12-22 6:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Richter; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, lm-sensors, linux-kernel, linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <43A9E2C9.7080300@hogyros.de>
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:18:33 +0100
Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de> wrote:
> A good ntpd will adjust the speed rather than write to the clock; the
> ntpd shipped by most distributions can already handle multiple time sources.
Yes, but there's the kernel who writes to the clock,
for example http://lxr.linux.no/source/arch/arm/kernel/time.c?a=arm#L103 .
> > later. The /dev/rtc interface only supports one clock.
> > It can either be extended to have /dev/rtcX or we
> > can extend the sysfs one to allow clock updating.
>
> /dev is the way to go IMO. As far as I've understood sysfs, it carries
> meta information about devices and drivers only, the actual
> communication then happens through device nodes still.
Ok. We can use dynamic device numbers and go for the /dev
interface.
>
> > NTP mode could then be adjusted to update one or more
> > of the rtcs. Maybe each RTC could have an attribute
> > (let's say /sys/class/rtc/rtcX/ntp) which tells the
> > kernel whether to update it or not.
>
> That's entirely a userspace thing. What the userspace needs to know from
> the kernel is whether the clock is writable and whether its speed can be
> adjusted.
agreed. there are are also some variables of interest in
http://lxr.linux.no/source/include/linux/timex.h?a=arm#L188
some of them may be usefully exported in sysfs.
--
Best regards,
Alessandro Zummo,
Tower Technologies - Turin, Italy
http://www.towertech.it
^ permalink raw reply
* port prpmc610
From: siman @ 2005-12-22 3:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <20051222010003.6CEF16895E@ozlabs.org>
Hi All:
I am porting linux to the prpmc610 board, powerpc610 has the ppc5debug
system, I have tried more deconfigs,but failed, The system can not run =
the
kernel When I execute the kernel, Anybody have any experience to port =
this
system. Please tell me.
Thank you so much.
-----=D3=CA=BC=FE=D4=AD=BC=FE-----
=B7=A2=BC=FE=C8=CB: linuxppc-embedded-bounces@ozlabs.org
[mailto:linuxppc-embedded-bounces@ozlabs.org] =B4=FA=B1=ED
linuxppc-embedded-request@ozlabs.org
=B7=A2=CB=CD=CA=B1=BC=E4: 2005=C4=EA12=D4=C222=C8=D5 9:00
=CA=D5=BC=FE=C8=CB: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
=D6=F7=CC=E2: Linuxppc-embedded Digest, Vol 16, Issue 55
Send Linuxppc-embedded mailing list submissions to
linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
linuxppc-embedded-request@ozlabs.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
linuxppc-embedded-owner@ozlabs.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Linuxppc-embedded digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem (Simon Richter)
2. Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem (Alessandro Zummo)
3. Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem (Simon Richter)
4. [RFC] genalloc !=3D generic DEVICE memory allocator (Andrey =
Volkov)
5. Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem (Alessandro Zummo)
6. Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem (Simon Richter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:18:25 +0100
From: Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem
To: Alessandro Zummo <azummo-lists@towertech.it>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org,
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk,
nslu2-developers@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <43A94811.4010704@hogyros.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Hi,
Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> I've posted a proposal for a new RTC subsystem on lkml (=20
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/20/220 ) .
I agree that there is room for improvement. Do you have a specific =
structure
in mind? Specifically,
- which functions do you believe to be generic,
- how should multiple RTCs be handled,
- are read-only (radio controlled) RTCs taken care of?
At present, I don't have time to help the cause, but I can provide =
hosting
for a git tree if desired.
Simon
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url :
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/attachments/20051221/05aa56=
40/
signature-0001.pgp
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 16:07:12 +0100
From: Alessandro Zummo <azummo-lists@towertech.it>
Subject: Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem
To: Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org,
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk,
nslu2-developers@yahoogroups.com
Message-ID: <20051221160712.2d322f42@inspiron>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:18:25 +0100
Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de> wrote:
> > I've posted a proposal for a new RTC subsystem on lkml (=20
> > http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/12/20/220 ) .
>=20
> I agree that there is room for improvement. Do you have a specific=20
> structure in mind? Specifically,
Hi Simon,
the proposal actually had a fully-working patch attached :)
> - which functions do you believe to be generic,
> - how should multiple RTCs be handled,
In my code, the first rtc that register is bound to /proc/driver/rtc =
and
/dev/rtc (if those interfaces are compiled in, as they are all =
selectable).
The other RTCs are available thru /sys/class/rtc/rtcX (again, if =
compiled
in).
> - are read-only (radio controlled) RTCs taken care of?
You have full control of which functions you will provide to the upper
layer. Obivously if you try to set the time on a read-only rtc, you =
will
get an error.
> At present, I don't have time to help the cause, but I can provide=20
> hosting for a git tree if desired.
Thanks, I'll consider it if the need arises.
--=20
Best regards,
Alessandro Zummo,
Tower Technologies - Turin, Italy
http://www.towertech.it
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:02:55 +0100
From: Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem
To: Alessandro Zummo <azummo-lists@towertech.it>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org,
linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
Message-ID: <43A97CAF.50301@hogyros.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Hello,
Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> the proposal actually had a fully-working patch attached :)
Ah, didn't see that, as I just skimmed over the web archive page you =
linked
to, which has no link to the actual patch (or I'm too stupid to find =
it).
> In my code, the first rtc that register is bound to /proc/driver/rtc =
> and /dev/rtc (if those interfaces are compiled in, as they are all=20
> selectable).
It would be good to have a way to change which clock is the "primary"=20
one from userspace later (userspace because this is clearly site =
policy).
> You have full control of which functions you will provide to the=20
> upper layer. Obivously if you try to set the time on a read-only rtc, =
> you will get an error.
Sure. I was thinking of the question which error that should be.
Simon
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url :
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/attachments/20051221/29bd58=
58/
signature-0001.pgp
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:23:28 +0300
From: Andrey Volkov <avolkov@varma-el.com>
Subject: [RFC] genalloc !=3D generic DEVICE memory allocator
To: jes@trained-monkey.org
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
Message-ID: <43A98F90.9010001@varma-el.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DKOI8-R
Hello Jes and all
I try to use your allocator (gen_pool_xxx), idea of which is a cute nice
thing. But current implementation of it is inappropriate for a _device_ =
(aka
onchip, like framebuffer) memory allocation, by next reasons:
1) Device memory is expensive resource by access time and/or size cost.
So we couldn't use (usually) this memory for the free blocks lists.
2) Device memory usually have special requirement of access to it
(alignment/special insn). So we couldn't use part of allocated
blocks for some control structures (this problem solved in your
implementation, it's common remark)
3) Obvious (IMHO) workflow of mem. allocator look like:
- at startup time, driver allocate some big
(almost) static mem. chunk(s) for a control/data structures.
- during work of the device, driver allocate many small
mem. blocks with almost identical size.
such behavior lead to degeneration of buddy method and
transform it to the first/best fit method (with long seek
by the free node list).
4) The simple binary buddy method is far away from perfect for a device
due to a big internal fragmentation. Especially for a
network/mfd devices, for which, size of allocated data very
often is not a power of 2.
I start to modify your code to satisfy above demands, but firstly I wish =
to
know your, or somebody else, opinion.
Especially I will very happy if somebody have and could provide to all, =
some
device specific memory usage statistics.
--
Regards
Andrey Volkov
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:41:22 +0100
From: Alessandro Zummo <azummo-lists@towertech.it>
Subject: Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem
To: Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
Message-ID: <20051221184122.5253df01@inspiron>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DUS-ASCII
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:02:55 +0100
Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de> wrote:
> > the proposal actually had a fully-working patch attached :)
>=20
> Ah, didn't see that, as I just skimmed over the web archive page you=20
> linked to, which has no link to the actual patch (or I'm too stupid to =
> find it).
right.. the link was to 0/6 of the patchset, which is
actually only the introduction. real patch was in subsequent
messages.
> > In my code, the first rtc that register is bound
> > to /proc/driver/rtc and /dev/rtc (if those interfaces
> > are compiled in, as they are all selectable).
>=20
> It would be good to have a way to change which clock is the "primary"=20
> one from userspace later (userspace because this is clearly site =
policy).
If I'm not wrong, the RTC is usually queried at bootup
and written to on shutdown. If NTP mode is active,=20
it is also written every 11 minutes.
So my intention was to emulate that interface as a starting
point. Then we can update the userspace utilities (hwclock)
to let the user choose which clock he want to use.
I guess /proc/driver/rtc will be deprecated sooner or
later. The /dev/rtc interface only supports one clock.
It can either be extended to have /dev/rtcX or we
can extend the sysfs one to allow clock updating.
NTP mode could then be adjusted to update one or more
of the rtcs. Maybe each RTC could have an attribute
(let's say /sys/class/rtc/rtcX/ntp) which tells the
kernel whether to update it or not.
=20
This way we will not have a primary clock anymore.
> > You have full control of which functions you will provide
> > to the upper layer. Obivously if you try to set the
> > time on a read-only rtc, you will get an error.
>=20
> Sure. I was thinking of the question which error that should be.
-EPERM ? -EACCESS? :)
--=20
Best regards,
Alessandro Zummo,
Tower Technologies - Turin, Italy
http://www.towertech.it
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 00:18:33 +0100
From: Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem
To: Alessandro Zummo <azummo-lists@towertech.it>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
Message-ID: <43A9E2C9.7080300@hogyros.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3D"iso-8859-1"
Hello,
Alessandro Zummo schrieb:
>>It would be good to have a way to change which clock is the "primary"=20
>>one from userspace later (userspace because this is clearly site =
policy).
> If I'm not wrong, the RTC is usually queried at bootup
> and written to on shutdown. If NTP mode is active,=20
> it is also written every 11 minutes.
A good ntpd will adjust the speed rather than write to the clock; the
ntpd shipped by most distributions can already handle multiple time =
sources.
I'm thinking of the case where a computer is not attached to a network
but needs accurate tim; in this case I'd give it a battery powered RTC
and a time signal receiver. As most time signals are low-bandwidth, they
may not carry full time information in each tick so it may take several
minutes to fully synchronize. In this case I'd like to use the battery
backed up clock first and switch later on when synchronized.
> I guess /proc/driver/rtc will be deprecated sooner or
> later. The /dev/rtc interface only supports one clock.
> It can either be extended to have /dev/rtcX or we
> can extend the sysfs one to allow clock updating.
/dev is the way to go IMO. As far as I've understood sysfs, it carries
meta information about devices and drivers only, the actual
communication then happens through device nodes still.
> NTP mode could then be adjusted to update one or more
> of the rtcs. Maybe each RTC could have an attribute
> (let's say /sys/class/rtc/rtcX/ntp) which tells the
> kernel whether to update it or not.
That's entirely a userspace thing. What the userspace needs to know from
the kernel is whether the clock is writable and whether its speed can be
adjusted.
> -EPERM ? -EACCESS? :)
-EIO or -ENOSYS would also be possible options.
Simon
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 374 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url :
http://ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-embedded/attachments/20051222/00d0d7=
c9/
signature-0001.pgp
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-embedded mailing list
Linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-embedded
End of Linuxppc-embedded Digest, Vol 16, Issue 55
*************************************************
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: linux DMA capabilities in MV64460
From: KokHow Teh @ 2005-12-22 2:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Phil.Nitschke, Linuxppc-embedded
>Currently there is a 2M aperture on the device, but it is not being seen
>as "prefetchable", so when I try to get data from the device using
>repetitive reads, they are very slow. Hence my efforts to get DMA
>happening.
>Presumably the CPU/bridge discovers PCI device memory regions during bus
>enumeration. What characteristic of a device determines whether the
>memory region is going to be marked as "prefetchable"?
Being "prefetchable" or not is determined by bit-3 of PCI Memory BAR.
>Does this attribute also affect whether DMA will work?
MAG> You may want to pick up "PCI System Architecture" from Mindshare,
MAG> Inc. There are ones for PCI-X and PCI-Express too, I think.
MAG> Well worth the money.
>Sounds like a good idea. I'd hoped not to have to become a PCI expert,
>but it seems that there is a lot for me to learn just to determine how
>best to design my driver.
Here is a good online reference but it does not cover dma and
cache-coherency in great details.
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/tlk/dd/pci.html
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: linux DMA capabilities in MV64460
From: Phil Nitschke @ 2005-12-22 0:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <20051220010136.GA31165@mag.az.mvista.com>
>>>>> "MAG" == Mark A Greer <mgreer@mvista.com> writes:
MAG> Hi Phil,
MAG> [Note: I'm cc'ing linuxppc-embedded for others to reference and to
MAG> add their thoughts.]
OK, I've just subscribed...
MAG> On Tue, Dec 20, 2005 at 10:49:58AM +1030, Phil Nitschke wrote:
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> I'm developing a device driver to run in the 2.6.10 kernel. I want to
MAG> That's a pretty old kernel. Do you have the option of using a more
MAG> recent one like 2.6.14?
That might be possible if I reverse-engineer a patch file by comparing
the Artesyn reference kernel (2.6.10) with the kernel.org version, then
trying to apply that patch to the latest kernel. I'll try this later...
>> get large amounts of data from a custom peripheral on the PCI bus. The
>> software is running on an Artesyn PmPPC7448, which includes a Discovery
>> III bridge.
MAG> Can you share exact platform you're using?
I'm using a PMC processor on a custom carrier card (not made by Avalon).
Here are the respective links:
Carrier: http://www.tenix.com.au/Main.asp?ID=938
Processor: http://www.artesyncp.com/products/PmPPC7448.html
MAG> The bridge supports bursting on the PCI bus as long as the bridge
MAG> is configured correctly and the PCI device is making an
MAG> appropriate request. Note, however, that there are many errata
MAG> for the Marvell parts including some with cache coherency. If
MAG> your system is running with coherency on, you may have to limit
MAG> your bursts to 32 bytes (i.e., the size of one cache line).
MAG> You can see how the bursting is set up on the bridge by looking
MAG> at the platform file for your board (e.g.,
MAG> <file:arch/ppc/platforms/katana.c> in the latest linux
MAG> kernel)--search for 'BURST'.
As far as I can tell, there is no platform file for this board in the
mainstream kernel.
In the reference kernel provided by Artesyn, there is a file named
arch/ppc/configs/pmppc7447_defconfig, where CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CACHE=y
Therefore in arch/ppc/platforms/pmppc7447.c, there is some code which
does this:
#if defined(CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CACHE)
mv64x60_write(&bh, MV64360_SRAM_CONFIG, 0x00160000);
#else
mv64x60_write(&bh, MV64360_SRAM_CONFIG, 0x001600b2);
#endif
... and later ...
for (i = 0; i < MV64x60_CPU2MEM_WINDOWS; i++) {
#if defined(CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CACHE)
si.cpu_prot_options[i] = 0;
si.enet_options[i] = MV64360_ENET2MEM_SNOOP_NONE;
si.mpsc_options[i] = MV64360_MPSC2MEM_SNOOP_NONE;
si.idma_options[i] = MV64360_IDMA2MEM_SNOOP_NONE;
si.pci_0.acc_cntl_options[i] =
MV64360_PCI_ACC_CNTL_SNOOP_NONE |
MV64360_PCI_ACC_CNTL_SWAP_NONE |
MV64360_PCI_ACC_CNTL_MBURST_128_BYTES |
MV64360_PCI_ACC_CNTL_RDSIZE_256_BYTES;
#else
si.cpu_prot_options[i] = 0;
si.enet_options[i] = MV64360_ENET2MEM_SNOOP_NONE; /* errata */
si.mpsc_options[i] = MV64360_MPSC2MEM_SNOOP_NONE; /* errata */
si.idma_options[i] = MV64360_IDMA2MEM_SNOOP_NONE; /* errata */
si.pci_0.acc_cntl_options[i] =
MV64360_PCI_ACC_CNTL_SNOOP_WB |
MV64360_PCI_ACC_CNTL_SWAP_NONE |
MV64360_PCI_ACC_CNTL_MBURST_32_BYTES |
MV64360_PCI_ACC_CNTL_RDSIZE_32_BYTES;
#endif
}
But I'm yet to learn what all this means...
>> Is there a summary of what is possible and/or not possible with the 4
>> IDMA channels on the mv64460?
MAG> The only real documentation is the bridge's user manual from Marvell.
MAG> Unfortunately, you must sign an NDA to get access to it so I can't share
MAG> mine with you. You will need access to that info to get very far so I
MAG> recommend you contact the people in your company that can make that
MAG> happen, ASAP.
I talked with a person from Marvell's only Australian distributor, who
told me that they'd not be too keen to give us an NDA, since we're not
developing a project specifically for the Marvell, rather we're using a
Marvell which has already been integrated in the Artesyn card.
Therefore, he argued, Marvell would tell me to go to Artesyn for the
info, as they already have the NDA. So for now, assume no NDA, no errata.
>> For example, if the device that I'm trying to get data from supported a
>> DMA engine capable of initiating bursts on the PCI bus (it currently
>> can't do this), does the current kernel code support that?
MAG> That's a hardware feature so its not really an issue of kernel support
MAG> other than ensuring that the firmware and/or kernel configures the bridge
MAG> correctly. IOW, it can be supported by software but its an issue of
MAG> whether your hardware supports it (and it actually works).
I'm not sure here whether you're talking about the hardware in the
CPU/bridge, or the hardware in the device. Since the device interfaces
to the PCI bus using firmware inside an FPGA, this is configurable (to a
certain extent).
Currently there is a 2M aperture on the device, but it is not being seen
as "prefetchable", so when I try to get data from the device using
repetitive reads, they are very slow. Hence my efforts to get DMA
happening.
Presumably the CPU/bridge discovers PCI device memory regions during bus
enumeration. What characteristic of a device determines whether the
memory region is going to be marked as "prefetchable"?
Does this attribute also affect whether DMA will work?
>> Or if I wanted to suck the data into main memory using the mv64460 IDMA
>> controller (assuming the device couldn't initiate its own burst writes),
>> is there a standard kernel interface to allow me to do this?
MAG> Yes. You would make a "dma ctlr driver" for the dma ctlr(s). I
MAG> don't know what the best example would be but hopefully someone
MAG> else has a suggestion.
OK, I'll look into this. I've been using the O'Reilly book "Linux
Device Drivers, Third Edition" by Jonathan Corbet, Alessandro Rubini,
and Greg Kroah-Hartman. They say "The kernel developers recommend the
use of streaming mappings over coherent mappings whenever possible."
I'm not sure how the H/W vs S/W coherency discussion has anything to do
with their assertion. I had previously thought that allocating a huge
buffer (for example at boot time) would be the way to go, but perhaps
getting the CPU to collect the data in smaller amounts into cache
coherent memory will give me the best performance?
MAG> You may want to pick up "PCI System Architecture" from Mindshare,
MAG> Inc. There are ones for PCI-X and PCI-Express too, I think.
MAG> Well worth the money.
Sounds like a good idea. I'd hoped not to have to become a PCI expert,
but it seems that there is a lot for me to learn just to determine how
best to design my driver.
Thanks for your input.
--
Phil
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem
From: Simon Richter @ 2005-12-21 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alessandro Zummo
Cc: linuxppc-dev, lm-sensors, linux-kernel, linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <20051221184122.5253df01@inspiron>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1764 bytes --]
Hello,
Alessandro Zummo schrieb:
>>It would be good to have a way to change which clock is the "primary"
>>one from userspace later (userspace because this is clearly site policy).
> If I'm not wrong, the RTC is usually queried at bootup
> and written to on shutdown. If NTP mode is active,
> it is also written every 11 minutes.
A good ntpd will adjust the speed rather than write to the clock; the
ntpd shipped by most distributions can already handle multiple time sources.
I'm thinking of the case where a computer is not attached to a network
but needs accurate tim; in this case I'd give it a battery powered RTC
and a time signal receiver. As most time signals are low-bandwidth, they
may not carry full time information in each tick so it may take several
minutes to fully synchronize. In this case I'd like to use the battery
backed up clock first and switch later on when synchronized.
> I guess /proc/driver/rtc will be deprecated sooner or
> later. The /dev/rtc interface only supports one clock.
> It can either be extended to have /dev/rtcX or we
> can extend the sysfs one to allow clock updating.
/dev is the way to go IMO. As far as I've understood sysfs, it carries
meta information about devices and drivers only, the actual
communication then happens through device nodes still.
> NTP mode could then be adjusted to update one or more
> of the rtcs. Maybe each RTC could have an attribute
> (let's say /sys/class/rtc/rtcX/ntp) which tells the
> kernel whether to update it or not.
That's entirely a userspace thing. What the userspace needs to know from
the kernel is whether the clock is writable and whether its speed can be
adjusted.
> -EPERM ? -EACCESS? :)
-EIO or -ENOSYS would also be possible options.
Simon
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 374 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Don't allow CONFIG_PMAC_BACKLIGHT on pmac64
From: Paul Mackerras @ 2005-12-21 22:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andi Kleen; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
In-Reply-To: <20051221193709.GA49171@muc.de>
Andi Kleen writes:
> It didn't work - i could select it.
Are you sure you don't have CONFIG_BROKEN=y?
Paul.
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] Don't allow CONFIG_PMAC_BACKLIGHT on pmac64
From: Andi Kleen @ 2005-12-21 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Richter; +Cc: linuxppc-dev
In-Reply-To: <43A95FE5.8060504@hogyros.de>
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 03:00:05PM +0100, Simon Richter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> >Don't allow to set CONFIG_MAC_BACKLIGHT on pmac64. It won't compile.
>
> > - depends on ADB_PMU && (BROKEN || !PPC64)
> > + depends on ADB_PMU && !PPC64
>
> That's why it's marked BROKEN, perhaps?
It didn't work - i could select it.
-Andi
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem
From: Alessandro Zummo @ 2005-12-21 17:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Richter; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, lm-sensors, linux-kernel, linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <43A97CAF.50301@hogyros.de>
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:02:55 +0100
Simon Richter <Simon.Richter@hogyros.de> wrote:
> > the proposal actually had a fully-working patch attached :)
>
> Ah, didn't see that, as I just skimmed over the web archive page you
> linked to, which has no link to the actual patch (or I'm too stupid to
> find it).
right.. the link was to 0/6 of the patchset, which is
actually only the introduction. real patch was in subsequent
messages.
> > In my code, the first rtc that register is bound
> > to /proc/driver/rtc and /dev/rtc (if those interfaces
> > are compiled in, as they are all selectable).
>
> It would be good to have a way to change which clock is the "primary"
> one from userspace later (userspace because this is clearly site policy).
If I'm not wrong, the RTC is usually queried at bootup
and written to on shutdown. If NTP mode is active,
it is also written every 11 minutes.
So my intention was to emulate that interface as a starting
point. Then we can update the userspace utilities (hwclock)
to let the user choose which clock he want to use.
I guess /proc/driver/rtc will be deprecated sooner or
later. The /dev/rtc interface only supports one clock.
It can either be extended to have /dev/rtcX or we
can extend the sysfs one to allow clock updating.
NTP mode could then be adjusted to update one or more
of the rtcs. Maybe each RTC could have an attribute
(let's say /sys/class/rtc/rtcX/ntp) which tells the
kernel whether to update it or not.
This way we will not have a primary clock anymore.
> > You have full control of which functions you will provide
> > to the upper layer. Obivously if you try to set the
> > time on a read-only rtc, you will get an error.
>
> Sure. I was thinking of the question which error that should be.
-EPERM ? -EACCESS? :)
--
Best regards,
Alessandro Zummo,
Tower Technologies - Turin, Italy
http://www.towertech.it
^ permalink raw reply
* [RFC] genalloc != generic DEVICE memory allocator
From: Andrey Volkov @ 2005-12-21 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jes; +Cc: Andrew Morton, linux-kernel, linuxppc-embedded
Hello Jes and all
I try to use your allocator (gen_pool_xxx), idea of which
is a cute nice thing. But current implementation of it is
inappropriate for a _device_ (aka onchip, like framebuffer) memory
allocation, by next reasons:
1) Device memory is expensive resource by access time and/or size cost.
So we couldn't use (usually) this memory for the free blocks lists.
2) Device memory usually have special requirement of access to it
(alignment/special insn). So we couldn't use part of allocated
blocks for some control structures (this problem solved in your
implementation, it's common remark)
3) Obvious (IMHO) workflow of mem. allocator look like:
- at startup time, driver allocate some big
(almost) static mem. chunk(s) for a control/data structures.
- during work of the device, driver allocate many small
mem. blocks with almost identical size.
such behavior lead to degeneration of buddy method and
transform it to the first/best fit method (with long seek
by the free node list).
4) The simple binary buddy method is far away from perfect for a device
due to a big internal fragmentation. Especially for a
network/mfd devices, for which, size of allocated data very
often is not a power of 2.
I start to modify your code to satisfy above demands,
but firstly I wish to know your, or somebody else, opinion.
Especially I will very happy if somebody have and could
provide to all, some device specific memory usage statistics.
--
Regards
Andrey Volkov
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: Power Pc 405EP
From: clark @ 2005-12-21 17:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev, inuxppc-embedded, Jeff.Fellin
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/html, Size: 1842 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Power Pc 405EP
From: Jeff.Fellin @ 2005-12-21 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-dev, inuxppc-embedded
We currently have a product implemented on a 405GP processor, and are
considering
changing to a 405EP processor, since we need two Ethernet ports on the
board. For
various reasons we are using Linux-2.4-18 for our system base, with
busybox.
If you know of any difficulty with doing a port of Linux, device drivers to
this platform
I would appreciate your reply.
Thank you
Jeff Fellin
RFL Electronics
Jeff.Fellin@rflelect.com
973 334-3100, x 327
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [RFC] RTC subsystem
From: Simon Richter @ 2005-12-21 16:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alessandro Zummo; +Cc: linuxppc-dev, lm-sensors, linuxppc-embedded
In-Reply-To: <20051221160712.2d322f42@inspiron>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 800 bytes --]
Hello,
Alessandro Zummo wrote:
> the proposal actually had a fully-working patch attached :)
Ah, didn't see that, as I just skimmed over the web archive page you
linked to, which has no link to the actual patch (or I'm too stupid to
find it).
> In my code, the first rtc that register is bound
> to /proc/driver/rtc and /dev/rtc (if those interfaces
> are compiled in, as they are all selectable).
It would be good to have a way to change which clock is the "primary"
one from userspace later (userspace because this is clearly site policy).
> You have full control of which functions you will provide
> to the upper layer. Obivously if you try to set the
> time on a read-only rtc, you will get an error.
Sure. I was thinking of the question which error that should be.
Simon
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 307 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply
* Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Call find_legacy_serial_ports() if we enable CONFIG_SERIAL_8250
From: Kumar Gala @ 2005-12-21 15:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell; +Cc: linuxppc64-dev, Kumar Gala, linuxppc-dev
In-Reply-To: <20051221161330.1a23384b.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
On Dec 20, 2005, at 11:13 PM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 20:45:27 -0600 (CST) Kumar Gala
> <galak@gate.crashing.org> wrote:
>>
>> In setup_arch and setup_system call find_legacy_serial_ports() if we
>> build in support for 8250 serial ports instead of basing it on
>> PPC_MULTIPLATFORM.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org>
>>
>> ---
>> commit 399e10aa1c6a3ca64e8e8e8cea7289e9908cc62c
>> tree 3e5320b8a97a37c4d010186aabf8a95e5be264b4
>> parent 7b69a37a4e811e72e82896ab38e6ae04542455f5
>> author Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> Tue, 20 Dec 2005
>> 20:48:36 -0600
>> committer Kumar Gala <galak@kernel.crashing.org> Tue, 20 Dec 2005
>> 20:48:36 -0600
>>
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_32.c | 2 +-
>> arch/powerpc/kernel/setup_64.c | 2 +-
>> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> You should probably change the Makefile as well to build
> legacy_serial.c
> in the CONFIG_SERIAL_8250 case.
Good call, was meaning to update the Makefile as well. I'll send an
updated patch with the Makefile change.
- kumar
^ permalink raw reply
page: next (older) | prev (newer) | latest
- recent:[subjects (threaded)|topics (new)|topics (active)]
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox