From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:18:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:57714 "EHLO h5.dl5rb.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1493207AbZKDLSm (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:18:42 +0100 Received: from h5.dl5rb.org.uk (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by h5.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA4BK3mo013729; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:20:04 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by h5.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nA4BJvWw013727; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:19:57 +0100 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 12:19:57 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Wu Zhangjin Cc: Arnaud Patard , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, LKML , huhb@lemote.com, yanh@lemote.com, Zhang Le , Thomas Gleixner , Nicholas Mc Guire , zhangfx@lemote.com, liujl@lemote.com Subject: Re: [PATCH -queue v0 1/6] [loongson] add basic loongson-2f support Message-ID: <20091104111957.GA13549@linux-mips.org> References: <1257332652.8716.5.camel@falcon.domain.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1257332652.8716.5.camel@falcon.domain.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 24669 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 07:04:12PM +0800, Wu Zhangjin wrote: > > Small question : Why don't you restrict to 64bit kernels only ? From > > what I remember from some discussions with ST, trying to use a 32-bit > > kernel on 2f is a nice way to get troubles. It would be better imho to > > forbid such a configuration. As a side effect, this will remove all > > 'defined(CONFIG_64BIT)' parts of your #ifdef tests. > > > > It's hard to make such a decision ;) Perhaps some guys want to play with > the 32bit version. We have other systems where 32-bit kernel support is just remarkably ugly. We've dropped 32-bit support for the SGI IP32 aka O2 - nobody seems to even have really noticed that. The Sibyte systems would be good candidates to do the same as accesses to outside the 32-bit address space are needed very frequently. Ralf