Hi Uwe, Thanks for the fast review and commit!
Heh, fun. This was a bug anyway (0x2000001d vs. 0x2000201d).
Yes.
Thanks, r6009. I took the freedom to do a few more whitespace cleanups.
Thanks, i must have overlooked them.
Thanks, r6011 with some small whitespace changes and s/Mhz/MHz/.
OK thanks.
Maybe we could make a GX2_PROCESSOR_MHZ_300, GX2_PROCESSOR_MHZ_366 etc. here, and let each board "select" the correct one in its Kconfig file?
This sounds good, i actually thought about something like that but i didn’t quite know how. And because at the moment there are only boards with 366 Mhz so i skipped it. I will study it some more and try to make a patch for it.
I'd personally drop this (also in the LX code), let's just use printk(), there's no reason to add such a mini-wrapper.
I copied it from LX. I will make a patch for that when i find some time.
Shouldn't there be a "while (1)" around the hlt instruction?
?? i don't know should it? The code seems to work, but if it is preferred/needed i will add it. Can you point me to some example code or could you supply some code snipped i can test?
Thanks, Nils.
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 08:28:27PM +0100, Nils wrote:
Shouldn't there be a "while (1)" around the hlt instruction?
?? i don't know should it? The code seems to work, but if it is preferred/needed i will add it.
As far as I know the "hlt" instruction on x86 does not really terminally "halt" the processor, it can be woken up again by certain events (NMI, debug exceptions, whatever). So usually you only see the "hlt" instruction in a while(1) loop if you want the code to not ever continue execution after the "hlt" instruction. But someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Uwe.
Op vrijdag 5 november 2010 01:29:52 schreef u:
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 08:28:27PM +0100, Nils wrote:
Shouldn't there be a "while (1)" around the hlt instruction?
?? i don't know should it? The code seems to work, but if it is preferred/needed i will add it.
As far as I know the "hlt" instruction on x86 does not really terminally "halt" the processor, it can be woken up again by certain events (NMI, debug exceptions, whatever). So usually you only see the "hlt" instruction in a while(1) loop if you want the code to not ever continue execution after the "hlt" instruction. But someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
Uwe.
Ok thanks for the explanation. It sounds plausible. I copied it from the LX code. I will study this a bit more when i find some time and try to make a patch.
Thanks, Nils.
-
Nils -
Uwe Hermann