From: andrew may <hidden> Date: 2002-03-15 19:41:37
This patch includes the last patch that I sent before the
directory move, plus some more stuff.
1. Fix merge error with MAX_NUM_PHYS in find phy loop.
(the for loop condition should match the if check)
2. Fix bad Partner Link check for the added Phy.
3. added mal.sh to generate a new ibm_ocp_mal.c
mal.sh DCRN_MAL_BASE >ibm_ocp_mal.c
or mal.sh DCRN_MAL_BASE DCRN_MAL1_BASE >ibm_ocp_mal.c
will work. It seems that the second on generates a smaller
object file even though the code is bigger for the 405GP.
I would think it is because MAL1 is 0.
This condenses all the get/set mal calls into one for get
and one for set. I also changed mal_num to mal, just to help
me find/change things.
I think this is a better approach than what was in the _mal.c,
but I didn't change the makefile to generate the code on the
fly yet.
4. Added skb_res as a module param and config.in option.
5. Created rx_clean/fill functions to remove duplicate code
in open and the 2 rx interrupts.
6. Handle dev_alloc failures better by retrying to alloc before
the rxde interrupt.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 11:41:37AM -0800, andrew may wrote:
3. added mal.sh to generate a new ibm_ocp_mal.c
mal.sh DCRN_MAL_BASE >ibm_ocp_mal.c
or mal.sh DCRN_MAL_BASE DCRN_MAL1_BASE >ibm_ocp_mal.c
will work. It seems that the second on generates a smaller
object file even though the code is bigger for the 405GP.
I would think it is because MAL1 is 0.
This condenses all the get/set mal calls into one for get
and one for set. I also changed mal_num to mal, just to help
me find/change things.
I think this is a better approach than what was in the _mal.c,
but I didn't change the makefile to generate the code on the
fly yet.
This looks very cool. Can you add in some comments to the shell script,
and I didn't see any bashisms in there, can you verify it works with
pdksh or one of the other script shells which can be /bin/sh ?
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: andrew may <hidden> Date: 2002-03-15 22:25:42
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:05:58PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 11:41:37AM -0800, andrew may wrote:
quoted
3. added mal.sh to generate a new ibm_ocp_mal.c
This looks very cool. Can you add in some comments to the shell script,
and I didn't see any bashisms in there, can you verify it works with
pdksh or one of the other script shells which can be /bin/sh ?
I am not sure how I can check against other shells since I don't
have them on my machine. Is sh --posix good enough?
Here is a patch to mal.sh with some more comments, taking an
arg of the Mal count, and some spacing fixups.
Am taking a day off my work, work so I am not around the code
to do a patch for the Config.help, but I will include the text
I would like there. It may be a bit verbose.
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 02:25:42PM -0800, andrew may wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:05:58PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 11:41:37AM -0800, andrew may wrote:
quoted
3. added mal.sh to generate a new ibm_ocp_mal.c
This looks very cool. Can you add in some comments to the shell script,
and I didn't see any bashisms in there, can you verify it works with
pdksh or one of the other script shells which can be /bin/sh ?
I am not sure how I can check against other shells since I don't
have them on my machine. Is sh --posix good enough?
It depends on what 'sh' is.
Here is a patch to mal.sh with some more comments, taking an
arg of the Mal count, and some spacing fixups.
From: andrew may <hidden> Date: 2002-03-18 22:25:07
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 03:31:40PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 02:25:42PM -0800, andrew may wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:05:58PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 11:41:37AM -0800, andrew may wrote:
quoted
3. added mal.sh to generate a new ibm_ocp_mal.c
This looks very cool. Can you add in some comments to the shell script,
and I didn't see any bashisms in there, can you verify it works with
pdksh or one of the other script shells which can be /bin/sh ?
I am not sure how I can check against other shells since I don't
have them on my machine. Is sh --posix good enough?
It depends on what 'sh' is.
Well I just have bash 2.05a.0(1)-release as a debian package.
Here is a patch for the Config.help and the Makefile
Yes, how else would get mal.sh. There was the first
patch, and a second patch that fixed up mal.sh.
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
On Mon, Mar 18, 2002 at 02:25:07PM -0800, andrew may wrote:
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 03:31:40PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 02:25:42PM -0800, andrew may wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:05:58PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
quoted
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 11:41:37AM -0800, andrew may wrote:
quoted
3. added mal.sh to generate a new ibm_ocp_mal.c
This looks very cool. Can you add in some comments to the shell script,
and I didn't see any bashisms in there, can you verify it works with
pdksh or one of the other script shells which can be /bin/sh ?
I am not sure how I can check against other shells since I don't
have them on my machine. Is sh --posix good enough?
It depends on what 'sh' is.
Well I just have bash 2.05a.0(1)-release as a debian package.
Can you apt-get pdksh or ksh at your liesure please?
Here is a patch for the Config.help and the Makefile