[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH -queue v0 1/6] [loongson] add basic loongson-2f support

To: Ralf Baechle <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -queue v0 1/6] [loongson] add basic loongson-2f support
From: Wu Zhangjin <>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:23:46 +0800
Cc: Arnaud Patard <>,, LKML <>,,, Zhang Le <>, Thomas Gleixner <>, Nicholas Mc Guire <>,,
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:reply-to:to:cc :in-reply-to:references:content-type:organization:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AnNvKBXmPjvwrqfCK9AAwLHT4O9zTlbdBN+2pifycIk=; b=Orzm4My4bypcuEN7i4emLg1S1rf9cTz9Ll1TaXVOyFfqBaZI6hSoYhlYDFghq2ZMMc Aqjzk0seHdVNxuJ1IgCEdl9ilpVlJLQA8kdcjww9Y/2LAMmbunwLUoyt0+SnmQDnTnHx 7qRkEXyWqGB6G+4k+FCNCCeMACBmMBK49UsYI=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=gamma; h=subject:from:reply-to:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type :organization:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer :content-transfer-encoding; b=NqOSNuxSMdZbf2gusNnmuDT0GMnoyrNV3EvMWchzzwJdLpicGVP18r5H0/CIbp8eJU scwY6fTaqoiQag+jEsk4IzqkcrR+eku0zOyarcz3viY9GWg0IEIP25pa5DfcHJf8/qGD NmTD3kc4TNdf/XFFgV9+OfEl4UrrFSaJ5aviA=
In-reply-to: <>
Organization: DSLab, Lanzhou University, China
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <>

On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 12:19 +0100, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 07:04:12PM +0800, Wu Zhangjin wrote:
> > > Small question : Why don't you restrict to 64bit kernels only ? From
> > > what I remember from some discussions with ST, trying to use a 32-bit
> > > kernel on 2f is a nice way to get troubles. It would be better imho to
> > > forbid such a configuration. As a side effect, this will remove all
> > > 'defined(CONFIG_64BIT)' parts of your #ifdef tests. 
> > > 
> > 
> > It's hard to make such a decision ;) Perhaps some guys want to play with
> > the 32bit version.
> We have other systems where 32-bit kernel support is just remarkably ugly.
> We've dropped 32-bit support for the SGI IP32 aka O2 - nobody seems to even
> have really noticed that.  The Sibyte systems would be good candidates to do
> the same as accesses to outside the 32-bit address space are needed very
> frequently.

So, we really remove the 32bit support?

1312 config CPU_LOONGSON2
1313         bool
1314         select CPU_SUPPORTS_32BIT_KERNEL  --> remove it?
1315         select CPU_SUPPORTS_64BIT_KERNEL
1316         select CPU_SUPPORTS_HIGHMEM

If you all agree, I will send a new patch to remove the above line and
resend the corresponding patches without 32bit support, and removed the
relative CONFIG_64BIT lines in the patches too.

        Wu Zhangjin

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