From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:27:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1]:58532 "EHLO h5.dl5rb.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1492286AbZKEK1T (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:27:19 +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 nA5ASfdA015803; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:28:42 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by h5.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id nA5AScOx015801; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:28:38 +0100 Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:28:38 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Wu Zhangjin Cc: 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: <20091105102838.GF12582@linux-mips.org> References: <20091105091841.GC12582@linux-mips.org> <1257414523.1824.11.camel@falcon.domain.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1257414523.1824.11.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: 24695 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 Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 05:48:43PM +0800, Wu Zhangjin wrote: > > I thought the Loongson 2E/2F were MIPS64 Release 1 compatible? > > > > They told me MIPS III, but added MMX instruction set ;) Just when I thought MIPS III was on the way out ;-) > > You're ifdefing on Loongson 2F - doesn't that mean that you can't have a > > kernel that supports both Loongson 2E and 2F? > > > > Currently, not consider it yet;) It's a little hard to cope with, should > we consider it at this moment? if yes, I will try it with the help of > exisiting machtype asap. but I think it's better to let it be the future > job ;) Fair enough - though I'm sure Linux distributions would be happy to have one kernel variant less to ship. > > static struct irqaction __maybe_unused dma_timeout_irqaction = { > > [...] > > }; > > > > okay, will apply it later. Thanks. Ralf