On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 5:07 AM Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 10/21/24 21:22, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 02, 2024 at 10:23:21AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 03, 2024 at 12:20:38AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > >>> On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 3:05 AM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 02:11:44PM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 11:26:39AM -0800, Luis Chamberlain wrote: > >>>>>> Masahiro, if there no issues feel free to take this or I can take them in > >>>>>> too via the modules-next tree. Lemme know! > >>>>> > >>>>> I've queued this onto modules-testing to get winder testing [0] > >>>> > >>>> I've moved it to modules-next as I've found no issues. > >>>> > >>>> Luis > >>> > >>> > >>> I believe this patch series is wrong. > >>> > >>> I thought we agreed that the alignment must be added to > >>> individual asm code, not to the linker script. > >>> > >>> I am surprised that you came back to this. > >> > >> I misseed the dialog on the old cover letter, sorry. I've yanked these patches > >> out. I'd expect a respin from Helge. > > > > Just goind down memory lane -- Helge, the work here pending was to move > > this to the linker script. Were you going to follow up on this? > > Masahiro mentions above, that the alignment should be added > to the individual asm code. This happened in the meantime for parisc, but > I'm not sure if all platforms get this right. > So in addition, I still believe that adding the alignment to the linker > script too is another right thing to do. > > Helge Yes, I believe the proper alignment should be specified in asm code. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada
