[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875ylomq3m.wl-maz@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2022 14:21:33 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>,
WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
libc-alpha@...rceware.org,
musl@...ts.openwall.com,
ardb@...nel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pci@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] asm-generic changes for 5.19
On Sun, 29 May 2022 12:24:29 +0100,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 5:00 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
> > - A series to add a generic ticket spinlock that can be shared by most
> > architectures with a working cmpxchg or ll/sc type atomic, including
> > the conversion of riscv, csky and openrisc. This series is also a
> > prerequisite for the loongarch64 architecture port that will come as
> > a separate pull request.
>
> An update on Loongarch: I was originally planning to send Linus a
> pull request with
> the branch with the contents from
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chenhuacai/linux-loongson.git/log/?h=loongarch-next
>
> but I saw that this includes both the architecture code and some
> device drivers (irqchip, pci, acpi) that are essential for the
> kernel to actually boot. At least the irqchip driver has not passed
> review because it uses a nonstandard way to integrate into ACPI, and
> the PCI stuff may or may not be ready but has no Reviewed-by or
> Acked-by tags from the maintainers. I clearly don't want to bypass
> the subsystem maintainers on those drivers by sending a pull request
> for the current branch.
It seems that there is now a new contributor on the irqchip front, and
the current approach *should* be better than the "copy MIPS and run"
approach that was previously taken. I'm still to find time to review
the new series (I just came back from a week off), but hopefully next
week.
> My feeling is that there is also no point in merging a port without
> the drivers as it cannot work on any hardware. On the other hand,
> the libc submissions (glibc and musl) are currently blocked while
> they are waiting for the kernel port to get merged.
I'd tend to agree. But if on the other hand the userspace ABI is
clearly defined, I think it could make sense to go for it (if I
remember well, we merged arm64 without any support irqchip support,
and the arm64 GIC support appeared later in the game).
Thanks,
M.
--
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
