From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
Cc: "Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"Nicolas Pitre" <nico@fluxnic.net>,
"Måns Rullgård" <mans@mansr.com>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>,
"Trivial patch monkey" <trivial@kernel.org>,
"Catalin Marinas" <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
"Will Deacon" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Pavel Machek" <pavel@ucw.cz>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:50:19 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1380235819.1974.94@driftwood> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yw1x38oswrss.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com> (from mans@mansr.com on Wed Sep 25 15:49:07 2013)
On 09/25/2013 03:49:07 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> >> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >>> It could be as simple as making gas accept an extra argument for
> >>> instructions like dsb and just ignoring it.
> >>
> >> So you prefer I come up with the reversion patches locally and
> _not_
> >> send them upstream?
> >
> > This is a silly attitude. What you're effectively saying is that we
> > are never allowed to use any future ARM instructions in any Linux
> > kernel because that might break your precious assembler.
> >
> > I've got news for you. We're *not* going to listen to that
> argument.
> >
> > END OF DISCUSSION (everything else is just a waste of time.)
Who am I to argue with capital letters?
> I fully agree.
Actually, I thought this was an armv5l regression. (My objection was to
requiring a newer toolchain for architectures that built fine under the
old one. My attention was attracted by the proposed patch to
Documentation/changes with a global updated for required binutils
version.)
I've since had a chance to confirm the armv5 build break I saw was just
normal mid-rc1 noise (since fixed) and this set of patches just applies
to armv7, which already required a newer binutils, so objection
withdrawn.
Rob--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: rob@landley.net (Rob Landley)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:50:19 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1380235819.1974.94@driftwood> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yw1x38oswrss.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com> (from mans@mansr.com on Wed Sep 25 15:49:07 2013)
On 09/25/2013 03:49:07 PM, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> >> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >>> It could be as simple as making gas accept an extra argument for
> >>> instructions like dsb and just ignoring it.
> >>
> >> So you prefer I come up with the reversion patches locally and
> _not_
> >> send them upstream?
> >
> > This is a silly attitude. What you're effectively saying is that we
> > are never allowed to use any future ARM instructions in any Linux
> > kernel because that might break your precious assembler.
> >
> > I've got news for you. We're *not* going to listen to that
> argument.
> >
> > END OF DISCUSSION (everything else is just a waste of time.)
Who am I to argue with capital letters?
> I fully agree.
Actually, I thought this was an armv5l regression. (My objection was to
requiring a newer toolchain for architectures that built fine under the
old one. My attention was attracted by the proposed patch to
Documentation/changes with a global updated for required binutils
version.)
I've since had a chance to confirm the armv5 build break I saw was just
normal mid-rc1 noise (since fixed) and this set of patches just applies
to armv7, which already required a newer binutils, so objection
withdrawn.
Rob
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rob Landley <rob@landley.net>
To: "Måns Rullgård" <mans@mansr.com>
Cc: "Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
"Nicolas Pitre" <nico@fluxnic.net>,
"Måns Rullgård" <mans@mansr.com>, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>,
"Trivial patch monkey" <trivial@kernel.org>,
"Catalin Marinas" <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>,
"Will Deacon" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Pavel Machek" <pavel@ucw.cz>,
"linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2013 17:50:19 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1380235819.1974.94@driftwood> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <yw1x38oswrss.fsf@unicorn.mansr.com> (from mans@mansr.com on Wed Sep 25 15:49:07 2013)
On 09/25/2013 03:49:07 PM, Måns Rullgård wrote:
> Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 10:23:06AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> >> On 09/24/2013 09:07:57 PM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >>> It could be as simple as making gas accept an extra argument for
> >>> instructions like dsb and just ignoring it.
> >>
> >> So you prefer I come up with the reversion patches locally and
> _not_
> >> send them upstream?
> >
> > This is a silly attitude. What you're effectively saying is that we
> > are never allowed to use any future ARM instructions in any Linux
> > kernel because that might break your precious assembler.
> >
> > I've got news for you. We're *not* going to listen to that
> argument.
> >
> > END OF DISCUSSION (everything else is just a waste of time.)
Who am I to argue with capital letters?
> I fully agree.
Actually, I thought this was an armv5l regression. (My objection was to
requiring a newer toolchain for architectures that built fine under the
old one. My attention was attracted by the proposed patch to
Documentation/changes with a global updated for required binutils
version.)
I've since had a chance to confirm the armv5 build break I saw was just
normal mid-rc1 noise (since fixed) and this set of patches just applies
to armv7, which already required a newer binutils, so objection
withdrawn.
Rob
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-26 22:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-19 9:30 3.12-rc1: no longer compiles for Nokia n900 (omap based) Pavel Machek
2013-09-19 9:30 ` Pavel Machek
2013-09-19 9:36 ` Will Deacon
2013-09-19 9:36 ` Will Deacon
2013-09-19 9:36 ` Will Deacon
2013-09-19 9:57 ` Pavel Machek
2013-09-19 9:57 ` Pavel Machek
2013-09-23 23:59 ` new binutils needed for arm in 3.12-rc1 Pavel Machek
2013-09-24 2:13 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-24 2:13 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-24 12:11 ` Måns Rullgård
2013-09-24 12:11 ` Måns Rullgård
2013-09-24 12:11 ` Måns Rullgård
2013-09-24 21:23 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-24 21:23 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-24 21:23 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-24 21:48 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-09-24 21:48 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-09-25 1:13 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-25 1:13 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-25 2:07 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-09-25 2:07 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-09-25 15:23 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-25 15:23 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-25 15:52 ` Måns Rullgård
2013-09-25 15:52 ` Måns Rullgård
2013-09-26 0:10 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-26 0:10 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-26 0:10 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-26 22:24 ` Måns Rullgård
2013-09-26 22:24 ` Måns Rullgård
2013-09-26 22:24 ` Måns Rullgård
2013-09-25 16:13 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-09-25 16:13 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-09-26 22:48 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-26 22:48 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-27 19:41 ` Pavel Machek
2013-09-27 19:41 ` Pavel Machek
2013-09-28 8:43 ` Pavel Machek
2013-09-28 8:43 ` Pavel Machek
2013-09-25 20:44 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-09-25 20:44 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-09-25 20:49 ` Måns Rullgård
2013-09-25 20:49 ` Måns Rullgård
2013-09-25 20:49 ` Måns Rullgård
2013-09-26 22:50 ` Rob Landley [this message]
2013-09-26 22:50 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-26 22:50 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-26 7:18 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2013-09-26 7:18 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2013-09-28 9:03 ` richard -rw- weinberger
2013-09-28 9:03 ` richard -rw- weinberger
2013-09-26 17:00 ` Ben Dooks
2013-09-30 11:27 ` Dave Martin
2013-09-24 2:20 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-24 2:20 ` Rob Landley
2013-09-19 9:44 ` 3.12-rc1: no longer compiles for Nokia n900 (omap based), display no longer works Pavel Machek
2013-09-19 9:44 ` Pavel Machek
2013-09-19 18:47 ` Aaro Koskinen
2013-09-19 18:47 ` Aaro Koskinen
2013-09-26 0:23 ` Pavel Machek
2013-09-26 0:23 ` Pavel Machek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1380235819.1974.94@driftwood \
--to=rob@landley.net \
--cc=Catalin.Marinas@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-omap@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=mans@mansr.com \
--cc=nico@fluxnic.net \
--cc=pavel@ucw.cz \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=trivial@kernel.org \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.