| To: | Dominic Sweetman <dom@mips.com> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: 64bit Sead build |
| From: | Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org> |
| Date: | Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:04:00 +0200 |
| Cc: | David Kesselring <dkesselr@mmc.atmel.com>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| In-reply-to: | <16157.13036.787738.445030@gladsmuir.mips.com> |
| Original-recipient: | rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org |
| References: | <20030721233649.GA6900@linux-mips.org> <Pine.GSO.4.44.0307220836390.16466-100000@ares.mmc.atmel.com> <16157.13036.787738.445030@gladsmuir.mips.com> |
| Sender: | linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 01:49:48PM +0100, Dominic Sweetman wrote: > > Thanks for the info. I'm trying to build 64bit sead so that it can > > be a basis for a port to our own chip with a MIPS 5kf core. > > Interesting. It's good to know people are looking at the 64-bit > ports. The general problem I'm observing is nobody wants to be the first through the minefield of building a commercial product based on a 64-bit kernel though for many applications it seems to be a much saner solution than a 32-bit kernel. My use is atypical but I'm running a 64-bit kernel SMP / ccNUMA kernel since years without major problems so we're 90% through and I'd like to know about the missing 10% ... Ralf |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: 64bit Sead build, Ralf Baechle |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch] Generic time fixes, Jun Sun |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: 64bit Sead build, Dominic Sweetman |
| Next by Thread: | Re: 64bit Sead build, Ralf Baechle |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |