On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:
> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:39:38 +0100
> From: Thomas Bogendoerfer <email@example.com>
> To: Kumba <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Cc: Ralf Baechle <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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
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
> 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)
> Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessary a
> good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]