linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SGI O2 meth: missing sysfs device symlink

To: Kumba <kumba@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: SGI O2 meth: missing sysfs device symlink
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 09:37:42 +0100
Cc: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, Giuseppe Sacco <giuseppe@eppesuigoccas.homedns.org>
In-reply-to: <4653BA42.3060104@gentoo.org>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1178743456.15447.41.camel@scarafaggio> <20070516151939.GH19816@deprecation.cyrius.com> <20070516160313.GA3409@bongo.bofh.it> <50621.192.168.2.50.1179383217.squirrel@eppesuigoccas.homedns.org> <20070517151636.GJ3586@deprecation.cyrius.com> <20070521154726.GE5943@linux-mips.org> <20070522110956.GB29118@linux-mips.org> <4653BA42.3060104@gentoo.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 11:51:30PM -0400, Kumba wrote:

> Didn't test on 2.6.22 (yet), but 2.6.21.1 works:

That's the only one I care about for purposes of upstream patch submission
anyway.

> Btw, If we wanted to protect meth from the speculative execution issues of 
> the R10000 processor, what's the right way for that?  I believe IP28 used a 
> special type of buffer for protecting Seeq from the DMA wonkiness that 
> occurs, but I got the indication that Meth would need a different approach.

I don't see why the standard approach would fail for meth.

  Ralf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>