> -----Original Message----- > From: kexec-bounces at lists.infradead.org [mailto:kexec-bounces at lists.infradead.org] On Behalf Of ANDY > KENNEDY > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 8:21 AM > To: Simon Horman; Maxim Uvarov > Cc: kexec at lists.infradead.org; Matt Evans > Subject: RE: kexec 2.0.2 MIPS > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Simon Horman [mailto:horms at verge.net.au] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:57 AM > > To: Maxim Uvarov > > Cc: ANDY KENNEDY; kexec at lists.infradead.org; Matt Evans > > Subject: Re: kexec 2.0.2 MIPS > > > > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:35:42PM -0800, Maxim Uvarov wrote: > > > 2012/1/24 Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au>: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > sorry for the extensive delay in responding to this. > > > > I am now back from Christmas, New Year, holidays and > > > > attending LCA 2012. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 05:27:31AM +0000, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: > > > >> Simon/All, > > > >> > > > >> After two months, I'm back working on this again. ?After 3 hours > > > >> tonight, I have the final result of what you told me to do. ?Looks like, > > > >> based on the comment: > > > >> > > > >> ? ? - remove kexec/arch/mips/mips-setup-simple.S which prepares cmdline for > > > >> ? ? ? new kernel, it is better to move this work to kernel code. BTW this code was > > > >> ? ? ? compilable only on o32 because of t4 is not defined on 64-64 or n32 MIPS ABIs. > > > >> > > > >> The problem is that my 2.6.36.2 apparently doesn't have whatever Maxim > > > >> is talking about. ?Therefore, the newer versions must not be backwards > > > >> compatible. ?Perhaps this is okay with you guys. ?If so, I'll just make > > > >> sure to include a patch to BuildRoot that clearly states that the v2.0.1 > > > >> is the only version that works with *some* versions of MIPS. ?If you > > > >> guys were expecting this to be backwards compatible, I'll gladly work > > > >> with you to test whatever you need checked out. ?Just let me know. > > > > > > > > It is not apparent to me that the kernel code Maxim makes mention of > > > > exists in any released kernel. I think that the best option at this > > > > stage would be to revert that portion of his change. > > > > > > > > Maxim, do you have any thoughts on this? > > > > > > > > > > Yes, kernel patches were not accepted and looks like stuck linux-mips@ > > > queue forever. > > > Reverting this patches it ok for me especially if somebody going to > > > work on them. As I remember > > > the was problem with supporting all mips ABIs (o32, n32, 32-64). It's > > > mostly related to asm purgatory > > > code. It will be nice if somebody can synchronize kernel and user land > > > parts and make mips kexec code > > > board independent. I think at this time it should be much easy since > > > mips supports device tree. > > > > Thanks Maxim. > > > > Andy can you prepare a patch to revert the problematic portion > > of the change? > > I'll do my best. I don?t know when I'll be able to get to it, given > that I've had scope change on my project 3 times in the last week. What a world. Today I was told "Never mind" on that scope change from yesterday. I'll try to get to it this week or next ;). Andy
