On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 06:51:55AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 12:59 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> > I'm not against it, and I agree some of the patches seem like good
>> > clean up. I'm concerned about this b
Hi Josh,
Excerpts from Josh Boyer's message of Fri Oct 01 21:36:35 +1000 2010:
> Aside from my general "uh, why?" stance, I'm very very hesitant to
> integrate anything in the kernel that doesn'.t have released patches
> on the toolchain side.
As I said the kernel can be built today with an unpat
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 12:30 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > And last I looked X still pukes if you give it a pixmap in non native
> > byte order but that might have been fixed.
>
> I'm not sure what exactly you mean by that, but I'm not aware of any
> such issues offhand.
Hrm, I meant on the DDX
On Sam, 2010-10-02 at 06:50 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 18:20 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> > On Fre, 2010-10-01 at 22:14 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > >
> > > Now, the main reasons in practice are anything touching graphics.
> > >
> > > There's quite
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 17:03 -0500, Olof Johansson wrote:
> > Maybe. Most of it doesn't seem to be that bit-rottable.
> >
> > The changes to the asm stuff in misc_32.S for example are functions we
> > never ever touch once written (libgcc replacements) so I don't see them
> > rotting more with LE s
On Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 06:51:55AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 12:59 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > I'm not against it, and I agree some of the patches seem like good
> > clean up. I'm concerned about this bit rotting pretty quickly.
>
> Maybe. Most of it doesn't se
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 12:59 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I'm not against it, and I agree some of the patches seem like good
> clean up. I'm concerned about this bit rotting pretty quickly.
Maybe. Most of it doesn't seem to be that bit-rottable.
The changes to the asm stuff in misc_32.S for example
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 18:20 +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On Fre, 2010-10-01 at 22:14 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > Now, the main reasons in practice are anything touching graphics.
> >
> > There's quite a few IP cores out there for SoCs that don't have HW
> > swappers, and -tons-
On Oct 1, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 07:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>>> From a community aspect is anyone actually going to use this? Is
>> this going to be the equivalent of voyager on x86? I've got nothing
>> against some of the endian clean up
On Fre, 2010-10-01 at 22:14 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> Now, the main reasons in practice are anything touching graphics.
>
> There's quite a few IP cores out there for SoCs that don't have HW
> swappers, and -tons- of more or less ugly code that can't deal with non
> native pixel o
On 10/01/2010 06:15 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 05:55 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
On 10/01/2010 05:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Oct 1, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
Some PowerPC processors can be run in eithe
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 07:36 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
> > This patch set in combination with a patched GCC, binutils, uClibc and
> > buildroot has allowed for a full proof of concept little endian environment
> > on
> > a 440 Taishan board, which
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 05:55 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 10/01/2010 05:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Kumar Gala
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Oct 1, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
> >>
> >>> Some PowerPC processors can be run in either big or little endian modes,
On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 07:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> > From a community aspect is anyone actually going to use this? Is
> this going to be the equivalent of voyager on x86? I've got nothing
> against some of the endian clean ups this introduces. However the
> changes to misc_32.S are a bit
On 10/01/2010 05:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Oct 1, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
Some PowerPC processors can be run in either big or little endian modes, some
others can map selected pages of memory as little endian, which allows the s
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
> This patch set in combination with a patched GCC, binutils, uClibc and
> buildroot has allowed for a full proof of concept little endian environment on
> a 440 Taishan board, which was able to successfully run busybox, OpenSSH and a
> handful of
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Oct 1, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
>
>> Some PowerPC processors can be run in either big or little endian modes, some
>> others can map selected pages of memory as little endian, which allows the
>> same
>> thing. Until now we have
On Oct 1, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Ian Munsie wrote:
> Some PowerPC processors can be run in either big or little endian modes, some
> others can map selected pages of memory as little endian, which allows the
> same
> thing. Until now we have only supported the default big endian mode in Linux.
> This
Some PowerPC processors can be run in either big or little endian modes, some
others can map selected pages of memory as little endian, which allows the same
thing. Until now we have only supported the default big endian mode in Linux.
This patch set introduces little endian support for the 44x fam
19 matches
Mail list logo
