[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New to list

On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 06:12:31PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> That explains why the patch below never worked on my Q950. I never sent 
> the patch because I figured there was something, well, fixable. It works 
> on CUDA. I think I tested Mac II ADB too, but I don't remember the 
> results.

Yes, that patch would cause a Q900 or Q950 to crash on RTC/PRAM access,
just like the 2.2 kernel did. It should work fine on any PMU, CUDA, or
EGRET based systems. It will most likely work on all the traditional
VIA bit-banging access systems, too. That code is pretty simple. If
you do commit this, it's probably better to also add an exception
for the Q900 and Q950 in the code so it doesn't crash.

We would need a driver for the caboose chip to get all these features
for the Q900/Q950. Someone was working on figuring it out, but there
was never any working code. This chip handles RTC/PRAM and the reset
and shutdown, I believe.

> I'm pretty sure that Roman's "move to adb/via init" comment* related to a 
> build failure that Al Viro since fixed**.

Now that you mention it, I remember that patch. It was primarily
intended to fix the reboot/shutdown code path, but I guess he fixed
the RTC and PRAM routines while he was changing the file. I actually
was involved in the mailing list discussion and reviewed that change,
but I guess I lost track of things.

	Brad Boyer

Reply to: