On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 06:51:55AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 12:59 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> > I'm not against it, and I agree some of the patches seem like good
>> > clean up. I'm concerned about this b
Hi Josh,
Excerpts from Josh Boyer's message of Fri Oct 01 21:36:35 +1000 2010:
> Aside from my general "uh, why?" stance, I'm very very hesitant to
> integrate anything in the kernel that doesn'.t have released patches
> on the toolchain side.
As I said the kernel can be built today with an unpat
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 12:30 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > And last I looked X still pukes if you give it a pixmap in non native
> > byte order but that might have been fixed.
>
> I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that, but I'm not aware of any
> such issues offhand.
Hrm, I meant on the DDX
On Sam, 2010-10-02 at 06:50 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 18:20 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Fre, 2010-10-01 at 22:14 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > Now, the main reasons in practice are anything touching graphics.
> > >
> > > There's quite
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 17:03 -0500, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > Maybe. Most of it doesn't seem to be that bit-rottable.
> >
> > The changes to the asm stuff in misc_32.S for example are functions we
> > never ever touch once written (libgcc replacements) so I don't see them
> > rotting more with LE s
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 06:51:55AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 12:59 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > I'm not against it, and I agree some of the patches seem like good
> > clean up. I'm concerned about this bit rotting pretty quickly.
>
> Maybe. Most of it doesn't se
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 12:59 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I'm not against it, and I agree some of the patches seem like good
> clean up. I'm concerned about this bit rotting pretty quickly.
Maybe. Most of it doesn't seem to be that bit-rottable.
The changes to the asm stuff in misc_32.S for example
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 18:20 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fre, 2010-10-01 at 22:14 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > Now, the main reasons in practice are anything touching graphics.
> >
> > There's quite a few IP cores out there for SoCs that don't have HW
> > swappers, and -tons-
On Oct 1, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 07:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>>> From a community aspect is anyone actually going to use this? Is
>> this going to be the equivalent of voyager on x86? I've got nothing
>> against some of the endian clean up
On Fre, 2010-10-01 at 22:14 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> Now, the main reasons in practice are anything touching graphics.
>
> There's quite a few IP cores out there for SoCs that don't have HW
> swappers, and -tons- of more or less ugly code that can't deal with non
> native pixel o
On 10/01/2010 06:15 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 05:55 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
On 10/01/2010 05:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Oct 1, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
Some PowerPC processors can be run in eithe
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 07:36 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
> > This patch set in combination with a patched GCC, binutils, uClibc and
> > buildroot has allowed for a full proof of concept little endian environment
> > on
> > a 440 Taishan board, which
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 05:55 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 05:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Kumar Gala
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 1, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
> >>
> >>> Some PowerPC processors can be run in either big or little endian modes,
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 07:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > From a community aspect is anyone actually going to use this? Is
> this going to be the equivalent of voyager on x86? I've got nothing
> against some of the endian clean ups this introduces. However the
> changes to misc_32.S are a bit
On 10/01/2010 05:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Oct 1, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
Some PowerPC processors can be run in either big or little endian modes, some
others can map selected pages of memory as little endian, which allows the s
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
> This patch set in combination with a patched GCC, binutils, uClibc and
> buildroot has allowed for a full proof of concept little endian environment on
> a 440 Taishan board, which was able to successfully run busybox, OpenSSH and a
> handful of
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
>
>> Some PowerPC processors can be run in either big or little endian modes, some
>> others can map selected pages of memory as little endian, which allows the
>> same
>> thing. Until now we have
On Oct 1, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
> Some PowerPC processors can be run in either big or little endian modes, some
> others can map selected pages of memory as little endian, which allows the
> same
> thing. Until now we have only supported the default big endian mode in Linux.
> This
18 matches
Mail list logo
