From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756254AbYJPXtw (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:49:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751942AbYJPXtp (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:49:45 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:48513 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750972AbYJPXto (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:49:44 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] edac cell: fix incorrect edac_mode From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: dougthompson@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20081016163532.273ea02f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <48f78434.Hj5aU4wgiL/VVJvn%dougthompson@xmission.com> <20081016163532.273ea02f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:49:02 +1100 Message-Id: <1224200942.7654.29.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 16:35 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Well that sounds a bit wrong of it. > > > Signed-off-by: Benjamin Herrenschmidt > > Signed-off-by: Doug Thompson > > --- > > > > drivers/edac/cell_edac.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > --- linux-work.orig/drivers/edac/cell_edac.c 2008-10-15 > 15:35:21.000000000 +1100 > > +++ linux-work/drivers/edac/cell_edac.c 2008-10-15 > 15:35:29.000000000 +1100 > > @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ static void __devinit cell_edac_init_csr > > csrow->nr_pages = (r.end - r.start + 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT; > > csrow->last_page = csrow->first_page + csrow->nr_pages > - 1; > > csrow->mtype = MEM_XDR; > > - csrow->edac_mode = EDAC_FLAG_EC | EDAC_FLAG_SECDED; > > + csrow->edac_mode = EDAC_SECDED; > > dev_dbg(mci->dev, > > "Initialized on node %d, chanmask=0x%x," > > " first_page=0x%lx, nr_pages=0x%x\n", > > Seems to be needed in 2.6.27.x? Applies OK to 2.6.26, 2.6.25, etc. > > How far back shold we port this? .25 sounds fine. Cheers, Ben.