On Thursday 12 May 2016 22:39:36 Christian Lamparter wrote: > On Thursday, May 12, 2016 11:40:28 AM John Youn wrote: > > On 5/12/2016 6:30 AM, Christian Lamparter wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 12, 2016 01:55:44 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > >> > > >> If I recall correctly, the rough consensus was to go with your longer > > >> patch in the future (fixed up for the comments that BenH and > > >> I sent), and I'd suggest basing it on top of a fixed version of > > >> my patch. > > > Well, but it comes with the "overhead"! So this was just as I said: > > > "Let's look at it and see if it's any good"... And I think it isn't > > > since the usb/host/ehci people also opted for #ifdef CONFIG_BIG_ENDIAN > > > archs etc... > > > > I slightly prefer the more general patch for future kernel versions. > > The overhead will probably be negligible, but we can perform some > > testing to make sure. > > > > Can you resubmit with all gathered feedback? > Yes I think I can do that. But I would really like to get the > regression out of the way. So for that: I back Arnd's patch. > It explains the problem much better and doesn't kill MIPS > like the revert I was doing in my initial post to the MLs. > Also, another bonus: his patch is suited to port to stable. > > The auto-detection approach is not that easy to get right, > given all the stuff that's going on with BE8, LE4, ... So > can we have your "blessing" for Arnd's patch for now? since > that way, I can base my patch on top of his work about the > issues of endiannes? (Just say: ACK ) > > Arnd: do you have a version with the #ifdef lower/uppercase > fix? Or should I give it a try (and fail in a different way ) I've already fixed it up locally, will send the latest version so it's out there, whether Felipe takes it or not. Arnd
