Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jun 2002, Jun Sun wrote: > > >>You missed the point - I like to see some open discussions before any big >>changes to MIPS. If you look back of all the significant changes made to the >> > > Agreed. > > >>MIPS tree, you will see a high percentage of them went in without any open >> > > I can't actually recall any significant changes recently (barring > platform additions I don't really track), certainly not since 2.4. All I > observe are bug fixes, clean-ups and similar stuff. > Here are some of those on top of my mind. And I am pretty sure I am missing others: 1) /proc/cpuinfo and some bootinfo.h change (I think these two come from one change) 2) split of cache and tlb files 3) some kind of flush_cache_LSB() routines. > >>discussion or pre-warning. It is this context that brought out :-(. Not your >>patch per se. >> > > If you suggest that this change qualifies as big, then I'd write you > exaggerate. It is not big logically. However, outside all the boards that are in oss tree, I can safely say there are at least twenty MIPS porting efforts going on at various stages. Next time those people sync up with oss, they will find the missing symbol of bus_error_init(). Anyway, I've sent a proposed function and then a real > implementation of bits that were broken "since forever". Even the > previous clean-up, for 32-bit MIPS solely, was written by me -- apparently > nobody else was interested in the subsystem. > It wasn't my intention to dampen your MIPS contribution. In fact, I start to regret about my first email which now looks a little irresponsible. If anything out of this thread can increase the awareness of open discussion and awareness of the existence of many boards which are not part of oss tree yet, I shall be happy. Jun
