On Sat, 2012-04-14 at 04:15 +0100, Julius Baxter wrote: > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:25 PM, Jeremy Bennett > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 14:13 +0200, Olof Kindgren wrote: > >> Hi everyone, > >> > >> There are a lot of things going with or1200, and recently there have > >> been more patches than we have had time to deal with. I know myself > >> that it is frustrating to submit patches without anyone acknowledging > >> them. Some of the proposed changes are also potentially breaking the > >> sw/hw ABI, which means we have to be really careful when we apply > >> them. > > Hi Olof > > This is true - we've been getting some good stuff from the likes of > Ruben and John and others and I've been a bit remiss in not finding > the time to properly push them through the process and get them into > the repository. It's been mainly a matter of time, but also I'm not > certain of the process for this stuff. I mean, we get patches and they > look fine to me - is my ACK enough for me to push it onto the repo? > Have we established this yet? I'd like to think so - this will make me > more likely to apply stuff which looks good and runs OK as soon as I > get around to having a go at it (which is usually within a day for RTL > patches.)
Hi Julius, I put some explicit details on the process for Or1ksim. This is based on our common practice for some time, and is similar to other community based projects. Assuming this also works for the RTL, you I presume are a maintainer of the OR1200 project, so if you OK it, you or anyone with "write-after-approval" permission can commit it. It would be useful to agree who the maintainers are for the OR1200 RTL and spec and who has "write-after-approval" - we need a MAINTAINERS file in the OR1200 directory. Only thing to avoid is approving your own patches. <snip> > > What is it that will break the ABI?> > > I think we came up with some changes for versioning which we were > happy with, and which shouldn't change the ABI. Same with the GPR0 > clarifications, and the SR[DSX] behaviour during system call, etc. The > issue here is not the OR1200, it's updating the arch spec. Plus, we'll > need a bit of a synchronous update of both the models (RTL and > or1ksim) and arch spec to implement the versioning stuff. OK - ABI clarifications, not changes. > Perhaps I can just collate the necessary changes, publish something to > the mailing list covering the changed text in the arch spec and go > ahead and update the "draft" spec in the repo. (Something needs to be > done about that, too.) I think we got bogged down in discussion of a > text-based format for the arch spec document (like the OR1200 has now) > last time and how we're going to handle changes to it, but I say for > now i'll work on the updated text and just post it to the mailing list > for ACK. But as far as I recall, we had agreed on solutions. Maybe a > wiki page on this... Sounds good. It's what Wiki "talk" pages are for. Jeremy -- Tel: +44 (1590) 610184 Cell: +44 (7970) 676050 SkypeID: jeremybennett Email: [email protected] Web: www.embecosm.com _______________________________________________ Openrisc mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencores.org/listinfo/openrisc _______________________________________________ OpenRISC mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openrisc.net/listinfo/openrisc
