[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [UPDATED PATCH] IP28 support

To: Thomas Bogendoerfer <>
Subject: Re: [UPDATED PATCH] IP28 support
From: peter fuerst <>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 20:49:53 +0100 (CET)
Cc: Kumba <>, Ralf Baechle <>,
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote:

> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 10:39:38 +0100
> From: Thomas Bogendoerfer <>
> To: Kumba <>
> Cc: Ralf Baechle <>,
> 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)

> Thomas.
> --
> Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessary a
> good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]

kind regards


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>