[PATCH] Re: Linkstation Mini and __machine_arch_type problem, not booting since 3.8
jason at lakedaemon.net
Mon Jun 22 11:04:18 PDT 2015
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 07:49:39PM +0200, Benjamin Cama wrote:
> Le lundi 22 juin 2015 ?? 12:08 +0000, Jason Cooper a ??crit :
> > On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 07:37:55PM +0200, Benjamin Cama wrote:
> > > Le vendredi 19 juin 2015 ?? 17:13 +0000, Jason Cooper a ??crit :
> > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 04:48:50PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 03:25:52PM +0000, Jason Cooper wrote:
> > > > > > Let's just get the dts patch reviewed and merged first. Russell
> > > > > > actually wrote the patch to do what he's describing for mach-dove.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-December/309684.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Although, it looks like it never got updated for submission...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-December/311800.html
> > > > >
> > > > > I do still have that patch, it's based on v4.0 though - like all my
> > > > > Dove work, it only builds on the previous -final kernel release.
> > > >
> > > > Benjamin, after the dts, would you mind picking up Russell's dove patch and
> > > > making a cooresponding orion5x patch?
> > >
> > > If the plan is to move to DT, is it still needed?
> > Sure, because orion5x is slow-going. There aren't that many users.
> > Since we prefer tested patches, we need to grab the opportunity when it
> > comes a long. It could be another year or more before we see more
> > patches for orion5x. Fully converting orion5x to DT doesn't have a
> > schedule, it's as we encounter devs willing to post patches for their
> > boards.
> According to rmk, letting their board break may be a quicker way to get
> the patches ;-) (and I agree with that: I wouldn't have moved to DT so
> fast if the build didn't break, it is a good incentive).
Oddly enough, that's how I got roped into being a maintainer. :-P
> > The opportunity here is that you were just booting a legacy board file
> > on an orion5x SoC. Therefore, you're in the best position to write/test
> > the irq change.
> OK, I understand. I'll try to find the time to test the non-DT case and
> offer a patch. About Russell's one: how is the Signed-off-by going in
> this case? I put his and then mine?
Well, it looks like it applies cleanly to linux-next, so we can probably
take it as is. My request was wrt the original patch I linked to, which
would have needed a rebase.
So, no need to do anything with rmk's patch. Just use it as a base for
the orion5x case if you need to.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel