On 09/25/2013 03:49:07 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
>> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>>> It could be as simple as making gas accept an extra argument for
>>> instructions like dsb and just ignoring it.
>>
>> So you prefer I come up with the reversion patches locally and
_not_
>> send them upstream?
>
> This is a silly attitude. What you're effectively saying is that we
> are never allowed to use any future ARM instructions in any Linux
> kernel because that might break your precious assembler.
>
> I've got news for you. We're *not* going to listen to that
argument.
>
> END OF DISCUSSION (everything else is just a waste of time.)
Who am I to argue with capital letters?
I fully agree.
Actually, I thought this was an armv5l regression. (My objection was to
requiring a newer toolchain for architectures that built fine under the
old one. My attention was attracted by the proposed patch to
Documentation/changes with a global updated for required binutils
version.)
I've since had a chance to confirm the armv5 build break I saw was just
normal mid-rc1 noise (since fixed) and this set of patches just applies
to armv7, which already required a newer binutils, so objection
withdrawn.
Rob--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
