[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXFijHBnQVPR=O85u78n6A1Ev_24k=vns4yPQ=d-aiAC8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2022 18:01:22 +0200
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
Cc: WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Masahiro Yamada <masahiroy@...nel.org>, musl@...ts.openwall.com,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, Jianmin Lv <lvjianmin@...ngson.cn>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...ngson.cn>
Subject: Re: Re: [GIT PULL] asm-generic changes for 5.19
On Wed, 1 Jun 2022 at 09:41, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 7:52 AM WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name> wrote:
> > On 6/1/22 00:01, Huacai Chen wrote:
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chenhuacai/linux-loongson.git/log/?h=loongarch-next
> > > has been updated. Now this branch droped irqchip drivers and pci
> > > drivers. But the existing irqchip drivers need some small adjustment
> > > to avoid build errors [1], and I hope Marc can give an Acked-by.
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > This branch can be built with defconfig and allmodconfig (except
> > > drivers/platform/surface/aggregator/controller.c, because it requires
> > > 8bit/16bit cmpxchg, which I was told to remove their support).
> > >
> > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/e7cf33a170d0b4e98e53744f60dbf922@kernel.org/T/#t
> >
> > I see the loongarch-next HEAD has been updated and it's now purely arch
> > changes aside from the two trivial irqchip cleanups. Some other changes
> > to the v11 patchset [1] are included, but arguably minor enough to not
> > invalidate previous Reviewed-by tags.
>
> Very nice! I don't see exactly how the previous build bugs were addressed,
> but I can confirm that this version builds. Regarding the two irqchip patches,
> 621e7015b529 ("irqchip/loongson-liointc: Fix build error for LoongArch") is
> a good way to work around the mips oddity, and I have no problem taking
> that through the asm-generic tree. The other one, f54b4a166023 ("irqchip:
> Adjust Kconfig for Loongson"), looks mostly unnecessary, and I think only
> the LOONGSON_HTPIC change should be included here, while I would
> leave out the COMPILE_TEST changes and instead have the driver
> changes take care of making it possible to keep building it on x86, possibly
> doing
>
> depends on MACH_LOONGSON64 || (COMPILE_TEST && ACPI)
>
> in the future, after the loongarch64 ACPI support is merged.
>
> > After some small tweaks:
> >
> > - adding "#include <asm/irqflags.h>" to arch/loongarch/include/asm/ptrace.h,
> > - adding an arch/loongarch/include/uapi/asm/bpf_perf_event.h with the
> > same content as arch/arm64's, and
> > - adding "depends on ARM64 || X86" to
> > drivers/platform/surface/aggregator/Kconfig,
> >
> > the current loongarch-next HEAD (commit
> > 36552a24f70d21b7d63d9ef490561dbdc13798d7) now passes allmodconfig build
> > (with CONFIG_WERROR disabled; my Gentoo-flavored gcc-12 seems to emit
> > warnings on a few drivers).
>
> The only one of these issues that I see is the surface aggregator one.
> I think we can address all three as follow-up fixes after -rc1 if the port
> gets merged and these are still required.
>
> > The majority of userspace ABI has been stable for a few months already,
> > after the addition of orig_a0 and removal of newfstatat; the necessary
> > changes to switch to statx are already reviewed [2] / merged [3], and
> > have been integrated into the LoongArch port of Gentoo for a while. Eric
> > looked at the v11 and gave comments, and changes were made according to
> > the suggestions, but it'd probably better to get a proper Reviewed-by.
>
> Right.
>
> > Among the rest of patches, I think maybe the EFI/boot protocol part
> > still need approval/ack from the EFI maintainer. However because the
> > current port isn't going to be able to run on any real hardware, maybe
> > that part could be done later; I'm not sure if the unacknowledged EFI
> > bits should be removed as well.
>
> Ard, do you have any last comments on this?
>
It would be nice if the questions I raised against the previous
revision (v11) were addressed (or at least answered) first. In
general, I think this is feeling a bit rushed and IMHO we should
probably defer this to the next cycle.
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.
