Hi, Ard, On Thu, Jun 2, 2022 at 12:44 AM WANG Xuerui <kernel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Ard, > > On 6/2/22 00:01, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 09:41, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 7:52 AM WANG Xuerui <kernel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> On 6/1/22 00:01, Huacai Chen wrote: > >>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chenhuacai/linux-loongson.git/log/?h=loongarch-next > >>>> has been updated. Now this branch droped irqchip drivers and pci > >>>> drivers. But the existing irqchip drivers need some small adjustment > >>>> to avoid build errors [1], and I hope Marc can give an Acked-by. > >>>> Thanks. > >>>> > >>>> This branch can be built with defconfig and allmodconfig (except > >>>> drivers/platform/surface/aggregator/controller.c, because it requires > >>>> 8bit/16bit cmpxchg, which I was told to remove their support). > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e7cf33a170d0b4e98e53744f60dbf922@xxxxxxxxxx/T/#t > >>> I see the loongarch-next HEAD has been updated and it's now purely arch > >>> changes aside from the two trivial irqchip cleanups. Some other changes > >>> to the v11 patchset [1] are included, but arguably minor enough to not > >>> invalidate previous Reviewed-by tags. > >> Very nice! I don't see exactly how the previous build bugs were addressed, > >> but I can confirm that this version builds. Regarding the two irqchip patches, > >> 621e7015b529 ("irqchip/loongson-liointc: Fix build error for LoongArch") is > >> a good way to work around the mips oddity, and I have no problem taking > >> that through the asm-generic tree. The other one, f54b4a166023 ("irqchip: > >> Adjust Kconfig for Loongson"), looks mostly unnecessary, and I think only > >> the LOONGSON_HTPIC change should be included here, while I would > >> leave out the COMPILE_TEST changes and instead have the driver > >> changes take care of making it possible to keep building it on x86, possibly > >> doing > >> > >> depends on MACH_LOONGSON64 || (COMPILE_TEST && ACPI) > >> > >> in the future, after the loongarch64 ACPI support is merged. > >> > >>> After some small tweaks: > >>> > >>> - adding "#include <asm/irqflags.h>" to arch/loongarch/include/asm/ptrace.h, > >>> - adding an arch/loongarch/include/uapi/asm/bpf_perf_event.h with the > >>> same content as arch/arm64's, and > >>> - adding "depends on ARM64 || X86" to > >>> drivers/platform/surface/aggregator/Kconfig, > >>> > >>> the current loongarch-next HEAD (commit > >>> 36552a24f70d21b7d63d9ef490561dbdc13798d7) now passes allmodconfig build > >>> (with CONFIG_WERROR disabled; my Gentoo-flavored gcc-12 seems to emit > >>> warnings on a few drivers). > >> The only one of these issues that I see is the surface aggregator one. > >> I think we can address all three as follow-up fixes after -rc1 if the port > >> gets merged and these are still required. > >> > >>> The majority of userspace ABI has been stable for a few months already, > >>> after the addition of orig_a0 and removal of newfstatat; the necessary > >>> changes to switch to statx are already reviewed [2] / merged [3], and > >>> have been integrated into the LoongArch port of Gentoo for a while. Eric > >>> looked at the v11 and gave comments, and changes were made according to > >>> the suggestions, but it'd probably better to get a proper Reviewed-by. > >> Right. > >> > >>> Among the rest of patches, I think maybe the EFI/boot protocol part > >>> still need approval/ack from the EFI maintainer. However because the > >>> current port isn't going to be able to run on any real hardware, maybe > >>> that part could be done later; I'm not sure if the unacknowledged EFI > >>> bits should be removed as well. > >> Ard, do you have any last comments on this? > >> > > It would be nice if the questions I raised against the previous > > revision (v11) were addressed (or at least answered) first. In > > general, I think this is feeling a bit rushed and IMHO we should > > probably defer this to the next cycle. > > Actually I think Huacai did reply to your review on v11: > https://lore.kernel.org/all/CAAhV-H7KAg8RxN7M=WiOOh0fDhEKTyqrwp6V-SC0cyR0iMrdeg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/. > It's a bit unfortunate that he probably didn't justify some of the > approaches enough, and it's especially unfortunate that some of the > points (like maybe the kernel version string in the EFI stub header) are > result of their internal discussion, which I presume to be especially > hard to change due to their particularly worrying corporate dynamics... I'm sorry that you haven't seen my reply, but as Xuerui said, I have replied to your review. :) Since you didn't reply to my answers again, I supposed that you consider "everything is OK". :) Now I plan to send V13, with the following changes: 1, Remove kernel_version string in efistub; 2, Remove the boardinfo knob in /sys/firmware/efi; 3, Add a reference in the commit message to explain while we need a magic number [1]. [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2021-10/msg00215.html Huacai > > But again, my point is that the userspace ABI in particular is *not* > rushed -- it has been brewing since v1 of the port which is already > several months ago, and multiple distro-building efforts are already > underway. We (LoongArch distro packagers) want to freeze the userspace > ABI so that many downstream efforts wouldn't be blocked by the merging > of kernel port. > > As the boot protocol is technically not part of the userspace ABI that > toolchains care about, and we already know it'll be a rather > standards-compliant UEFI implementation even if this part gets dropped > for brewing one more cycle, would taking this part out work for you? >
