On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:39:38 +0100 > From: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: Kumba <kumba@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [UPDATED PATCH] IP28 support > > On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 01:16:13AM -0500, Kumba wrote: > > I've been out of it lately -- did the gcc side of things ever make it in, > > or do we need to go push on that some more? > > We need push on that. ... There was no answer to .../2006-05/msg01446.html. Perhaps i should just put together an updated patch, that incorporates the changes proposed in msg01446.html, and submit it (with the longer "Cc:" line and a hint to the increasing demand for it ;-) to revive at least the discussion at gcc-patches. What could be changed beyond the proposed changes without either omitting necessary cache-barriers or crippling the R10k, i can't see yet. > We need push on that. Looking at > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-04/msg00291.html > > there seems to be a missing understanding, why the cache > barriers are needed. I guess the patch could be improved > by pointing directly to the errata section of the R10k > user manual. Or even better copy the text out of the user > manual. That should make clear why this patch is needed. Better copy, i guess. (Assuming copying whole paragraphs is still proper citation ;-) Along with the initial patch (.../2006-03.msg00090.html) as well as in the last letter so far (.../2006-05/msg01446.html) i pointed to the corresponding chapter in the R10k User's Manual and to the entry in the NetBSD eMail archive. In the last letter i tried to augment these by a summarizing explanation, but it seems i'm not very good at that... > > Peter did you do the copyright assigment ? That's probably > the second part, which needs to be done. Yes, the assignment process became complete on May 22 2006 (though apparently i missed to notify Richard Sandiford about it) > > Thomas. > > -- > Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessary a > good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ] > > > kind regards peter
