peter fuerst wrote:
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 would be helpful. It would have to be against GCC's svn trunk.
Currently 4.3 is in regression fix only mode. The earliest the patch
could appear in an official GCC release would probably be version 4.4
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.
Just sent it to gcc-patches@ I think it will be noticed.
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)
Good. Richard is generally quite responsive to patches. Perhaps CC him
on your patch.
David Daney
