Thanks a lot for that. I haven't found the time to review all the
patches from V15 now, but I can directly review the V16 instead when I
find the time.
Aurelien
On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 11:04:15PM +0800, Huacai Chen wrote:
> V16 will be coming soon.
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 31, 2013 at 05:17:51PM +0200, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Mon, Dec 30, 2013 at 10:33:54PM +0100, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > > switch (c->processor_id & PRID_REV_MASK) {
> > > > > case PRID_REV_LOONGSON2E:
> > > > > + c->cputype = CPU_LOONGSON2;
> > > > > + __cpu_name[cpu] = "ICT Loongson-2E";
> > > > > set_elf_platform(cpu, "loongson2e");
> > > > > break;
> > > > > case PRID_REV_LOONGSON2F:
> > > > > + c->cputype = CPU_LOONGSON2;
> > > > > + __cpu_name[cpu] = "ICT Loongson-2F";
> > > > > set_elf_platform(cpu, "loongson2f");
> > > >
> > > > I have mixed feelings about the Loongson-2 name change. On one side
> > it's
> > > > clearly better to have 2E and 2F instead of 2 V0.2 and 2 V0.3, and it
> > > > should have been like that since the beginning. That said changing that
> > > > now is kind of breaking the userland. I know that it would break debian
> > > > installer support for example, though that should not be a real problem
> > > > as we ship the installer with a given kernel version. I don't know if
> > > > there are other usages that can cause a problem. Any opinion from
> > > > others?
> > >
> > > Changing it would break also GCC's -march=native detection. So NACK.
> >
> > Indeed, good catch. That said it already looks for both Godson2 and
> > Loongson-2, so I guess such a patch is acceptable if someone updates GCC
> > and waits a few years before submitting it again.
> >
> > --
> > Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
> > aurelien@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.aurel32.net
> >
> >
--
Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.aurel32.net
