Hi Felipe,
> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Felipe Contreras
<snip>
> >> As part of contributing this code there has been a lot of reworking
> of the code. Last I had heard checkpatch and sparse warnings had been
> killed. There was also a lot of work in making sure there would be no
> legal impact to the kernel to clear its ability to be contributed.
> >
> > Not true: 13 errors, 246 warnings.
Today another set of warning changes is in queue. Will have to check what the current number has become. It will be low. The start number a while back was defiantly very high.
Checkpatch.pl is just a guide. Completely changing code for the tool isn't probably a good idea. It might even get you severally flamed on LKML :) The recent threads are informative (ok to read, bad to be in).
Incidentally, when I asked the person working these changes, they had reported 0 functional errors had been fixed by the checkpatch changes. A lot of the noise was typedef reduction.
<snip>
> Err, I got confused about the CE/Link, I meant the xdctools... or
> whatever is needed to compile DSP nodes. AFAIK the DSP compiler is not
> enough.
You are correct that the internal DSP architecture is not opened up only the ARM side and the peripherals. DSP internals is another topic. You should be able to compile the ARM side.
A few years back I had heard about some people even successfully running Linux on the C6x DSP. I think it ran well, but kind of neat all the same. DSPBIOS or other tiny OSes work much better there.
Regards,
Richard W.
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{�������ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
