* No mach-type for SHEEVAD? @ 2011-08-04 9:17 Linus Walleij 2011-08-04 9:22 ` Eric Miao 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Linus Walleij @ 2011-08-04 9:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel I tried to configure the mmp2 to build the "gplugd" variant found in the arch/arm/mach-mmp2/gplugd.c source file, however it fails miserably: arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.c:183: error: 'MACH_TYPE_SHEEVAD' undeclared here (not in a function) make[3]: *** [arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.o] Error 1 Which is not strange given that it's not in mach-types. Nor does it appear to ever have been there, and I wonder if it was ever submitted to Russells machine registry. Can the subarch maintainers tell us how to deal with this, say like delete the boardfile or add the machine type? Thanks, Linus Walleij ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* No mach-type for SHEEVAD? 2011-08-04 9:17 No mach-type for SHEEVAD? Linus Walleij @ 2011-08-04 9:22 ` Eric Miao 2011-08-12 13:19 ` Linus Walleij 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Eric Miao @ 2011-08-04 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Hi Russell, ISTR this entry will be there once the cleanup of mach-types is done? Or we can submit a new entry for this? - eric On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: > I tried to configure the mmp2 to build the "gplugd" variant > found in the arch/arm/mach-mmp2/gplugd.c source file, > however it fails miserably: > > arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.c:183: error: 'MACH_TYPE_SHEEVAD' undeclared > here (not in a function) > make[3]: *** [arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.o] Error 1 > > Which is not strange given that it's not in mach-types. > Nor does it appear to ever have been there, and I wonder > if it was ever submitted to Russells machine registry. > > Can the subarch maintainers tell us how to deal with this, > say like delete the boardfile or add the machine type? > > Thanks, > Linus Walleij > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* No mach-type for SHEEVAD? 2011-08-04 9:22 ` Eric Miao @ 2011-08-12 13:19 ` Linus Walleij 2011-08-15 5:06 ` Haojian Zhuang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Linus Walleij @ 2011-08-12 13:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Eric Miao <eric.miao@linaro.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: >> I tried to configure the mmp2 to build the "gplugd" variant >> found in the arch/arm/mach-mmp2/gplugd.c source file, >> however it fails miserably: >> >> arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.c:183: error: 'MACH_TYPE_SHEEVAD' undeclared >> here (not in a function) >> make[3]: *** [arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.o] Error 1 > > Hi Russell, > > ISTR this entry will be there once the cleanup of mach-types is done? Or > we can submit a new entry for this? Is this getting anywhere? Torvald's HEAD is still broken for gplugD. Shall I submit a new machine type so it atleast gets fixed in the next merge window? Thanks, Linus Walleij ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* No mach-type for SHEEVAD? 2011-08-12 13:19 ` Linus Walleij @ 2011-08-15 5:06 ` Haojian Zhuang 2011-08-15 5:28 ` Eric Miao 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Haojian Zhuang @ 2011-08-15 5:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel >-----Original Message----- >From: Linus Walleij [mailto:linus.walleij at linaro.org] >Sent: 2011?8?12? 9:20 PM >To: Eric Miao >Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; Haojian Zhuang; Tanmay >Upadhyay >Subject: Re: No mach-type for SHEEVAD? > >On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Eric Miao <eric.miao@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Walleij ><linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: >>> I tried to configure the mmp2 to build the "gplugd" variant >>> found in the arch/arm/mach-mmp2/gplugd.c source file, >>> however it fails miserably: >>> >>> arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.c:183: error: 'MACH_TYPE_SHEEVAD' undeclared >>> here (not in a function) >>> make[3]: *** [arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.o] Error 1 >> >> Hi Russell, >> >> ISTR this entry will be there once the cleanup of mach-types is done? >Or >> we can submit a new entry for this? > >Is this getting anywhere? Torvald's HEAD is still broken >for gplugD. Shall I submit a new machine type so it >atleast gets fixed in the next merge window? > >Thanks, >Linus Walleij Hi Linus, I suggest you to register the machine SHEEVAD in this link. (http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines) Thanks Haojian ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* No mach-type for SHEEVAD? 2011-08-15 5:06 ` Haojian Zhuang @ 2011-08-15 5:28 ` Eric Miao 2011-08-15 6:32 ` Eric Miao 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Eric Miao @ 2011-08-15 5:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel 2011/8/15 Haojian Zhuang <hzhuang1@marvell.com>: > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Linus Walleij [mailto:linus.walleij at linaro.org] >>Sent: 2011?8?12? 9:20 PM >>To: Eric Miao >>Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; Haojian Zhuang; Tanmay >>Upadhyay >>Subject: Re: No mach-type for SHEEVAD? >> >>On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Eric Miao <eric.miao@linaro.org> wrote: >>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Walleij >><linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> I tried to configure the mmp2 to build the "gplugd" variant >>>> found in the arch/arm/mach-mmp2/gplugd.c source file, >>>> however it fails miserably: >>>> >>>> arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.c:183: error: 'MACH_TYPE_SHEEVAD' undeclared >>>> here (not in a function) >>>> make[3]: *** [arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.o] Error 1 >>> >>> Hi Russell, >>> >>> ISTR this entry will be there once the cleanup of mach-types is done? >>Or >>> we can submit a new entry for this? >> >>Is this getting anywhere? Torvald's HEAD is still broken >>for gplugD. Shall I submit a new machine type so it >>atleast gets fixed in the next merge window? >> >>Thanks, >>Linus Walleij > > Hi Linus, > > I suggest you to register the machine SHEEVAD in this link. (http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines) Tanmay mentioned it would appear in 3.1 yet it doesn't seem so. It's actually not Linus' duty to register this. I'll go ahead with the registration, although I'm not sure if there's still chance for this to get into 3.1-rcX. Will at least be in 3.2. > > Thanks > Haojian > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* No mach-type for SHEEVAD? 2011-08-15 5:28 ` Eric Miao @ 2011-08-15 6:32 ` Eric Miao 2011-08-15 6:33 ` Eric Miao 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Eric Miao @ 2011-08-15 6:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Eric Miao <eric.miao@linaro.org> wrote: > 2011/8/15 Haojian Zhuang <hzhuang1@marvell.com>: >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Linus Walleij [mailto:linus.walleij at linaro.org] >>>Sent: 2011?8?12? 9:20 PM >>>To: Eric Miao >>>Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; Haojian Zhuang; Tanmay >>>Upadhyay >>>Subject: Re: No mach-type for SHEEVAD? >>> >>>On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Eric Miao <eric.miao@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Walleij >>><linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> I tried to configure the mmp2 to build the "gplugd" variant >>>>> found in the arch/arm/mach-mmp2/gplugd.c source file, >>>>> however it fails miserably: >>>>> >>>>> arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.c:183: error: 'MACH_TYPE_SHEEVAD' undeclared >>>>> here (not in a function) >>>>> make[3]: *** [arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.o] Error 1 >>>> >>>> Hi Russell, >>>> >>>> ISTR this entry will be there once the cleanup of mach-types is done? >>>Or >>>> we can submit a new entry for this? >>> >>>Is this getting anywhere? Torvald's HEAD is still broken >>>for gplugD. Shall I submit a new machine type so it >>>atleast gets fixed in the next merge window? >>> >>>Thanks, >>>Linus Walleij >> >> Hi Linus, >> >> I suggest you to register the machine SHEEVAD in this link. (http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines) > > Tanmay mentioned it would appear in 3.1 yet it doesn't seem so. > It's actually not Linus' duty to register this. I'll go ahead with the > registration, although I'm not sure if there's still chance for this > to get into 3.1-rcX. Will at least be in 3.2. Interestingly, gplugd has already been registered in the machine database by Ofer. 2625 GURU_PLUGD gplugd Ofer Zaarur mainlined > >> >> Thanks >> Haojian >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >> > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* No mach-type for SHEEVAD? 2011-08-15 6:32 ` Eric Miao @ 2011-08-15 6:33 ` Eric Miao 2011-08-15 8:53 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Eric Miao @ 2011-08-15 6:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Eric Miao <eric.miao@linaro.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Eric Miao <eric.miao@linaro.org> wrote: >> 2011/8/15 Haojian Zhuang <hzhuang1@marvell.com>: >>> >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: Linus Walleij [mailto:linus.walleij at linaro.org] >>>>Sent: 2011?8?12? 9:20 PM >>>>To: Eric Miao >>>>Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; Haojian Zhuang; Tanmay >>>>Upadhyay >>>>Subject: Re: No mach-type for SHEEVAD? >>>> >>>>On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Eric Miao <eric.miao@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Linus Walleij >>>><linus.walleij@linaro.org> wrote: >>>>>> I tried to configure the mmp2 to build the "gplugd" variant >>>>>> found in the arch/arm/mach-mmp2/gplugd.c source file, >>>>>> however it fails miserably: >>>>>> >>>>>> arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.c:183: error: 'MACH_TYPE_SHEEVAD' undeclared >>>>>> here (not in a function) >>>>>> make[3]: *** [arch/arm/mach-mmp/gplugd.o] Error 1 >>>>> >>>>> Hi Russell, >>>>> >>>>> ISTR this entry will be there once the cleanup of mach-types is done? >>>>Or >>>>> we can submit a new entry for this? >>>> >>>>Is this getting anywhere? Torvald's HEAD is still broken >>>>for gplugD. Shall I submit a new machine type so it >>>>atleast gets fixed in the next merge window? >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Linus Walleij >>> >>> Hi Linus, >>> >>> I suggest you to register the machine SHEEVAD in this link. (http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/machines) >> >> Tanmay mentioned it would appear in 3.1 yet it doesn't seem so. >> It's actually not Linus' duty to register this. I'll go ahead with the >> registration, although I'm not sure if there's still chance for this >> to get into 3.1-rcX. Will at least be in 3.2. > > Interestingly, gplugd has already been registered in the machine database > by Ofer. > > 2625 ? ?GURU_PLUGD ? ? ?gplugd ?Ofer Zaarur ? ? mainlined Russell, Any idea if this entry would have any chance to be in -next? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* No mach-type for SHEEVAD? 2011-08-15 6:33 ` Eric Miao @ 2011-08-15 8:53 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2011-08-15 9:00 ` Eric Miao 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Russell King - ARM Linux @ 2011-08-15 8:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 02:33:09PM +0800, Eric Miao wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Eric Miao <eric.miao@linaro.org> wrote: > > Interestingly, gplugd has already been registered in the machine database > > by Ofer. > > > > 2625 ? ?GURU_PLUGD ? ? ?gplugd ?Ofer Zaarur ? ? mainlined > > Russell, > > Any idea if this entry would have any chance to be in -next? Updating that file is becoming more of a burden because of all the crap that's been accumulating in the database. It used to be the case at one time that I could just run a script which grabbed the file and committed it. Those days have long since passed. It now requires manual editing to remove all the crap which now exists. For instance, these entries are never going to be added in their current form: +argonst_mp MACH_HYNET_INE HYNET_INE 1319 +riot_gx2 MACH_RIOT_VOX RIOT_VOX 2577 +nautel_am35xx MACH_NAUTEL_LPC3240 NAUTEL_LPC3240 2591 +gplugd MACH_SHEEVAD SHEEVAD 2625 +dig297 MACH_OMAP3_CPS OMAP3_CPS 2751 +lpc_evo MACH_LPC2 LPC2 2777 +ep3505 MACH_EP3517 EP3517 3056 +pydtd MACH_PYRAMID_TD PYRAMID_TD 3295 +guf_vincell MACH_GUF_PLANET GUF_PLANET 3297 +geneva_b4 MACH_GENEVA_B GENEVA_B 3308 +ea2468devkit MACH_LPC2468OEM LPC2468OEM 3389 +fe2478mblox MACH_LPC2478MICROBLOX LPC2478MICROBLOX 3391 +msm8960_mtp MACH_MSM8960_MDP MSM8960_MDP 3397 +omap_tabletblaze MACH_OMAP_BLAZE OMAP_BLAZE 3429 +ge863pro3 MACH_GE863 GE863 3469 +arm MACH_ARM ARM 3573 +omap3 MACH_OMAP3 OMAP3 3574 +mach_ecog45 MACH_MACH_ECOG45 MACH_ECOG45 3595 +linux_pad MACH_THEPAD THEPAD 3608 +imx MACH_IMX IMX 3611 +coreware_sam9260_ MACH_COREWARE_SAM9260_ COREWARE_SAM9260_ 3634 because either they're an architecture name, a SoC name, or the machine_is_xxx() does not match the MACH_TYPE_xxx and CONFIG_ macros (because they haven't talked to me about changing them.) That includes the gplugd/sheevad stuff, which would (continue) to be deleted from the file I merge for one of those reasons. Now that the gplugd stuff is in, is it called gplugd or sheevad? The registry entry above shows that it was called sheevad but it has been changed to gplugd. The file is called gplugd.c but it uses sheevad internally. So god only knows, it's a complete and utter mess. So no, I'm not merging that entry until someone (a) tells me what it should be, and (b) fixes stuff up to use the correct name. That goes for the other entries, some of which I'm just going to expire from the registry (like the ARM, IMX and OMAP3 ones) so I never have to bother with them again. I'm also thinking that the in-kernel mach-types will _only_ contain those entries which have code in mainline - eliminating the "touched in the last 12 months" criterion. That certainly does reduce the amount of broken entries to be dealt with down to just one entry (the gplugd one). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* No mach-type for SHEEVAD? 2011-08-15 8:53 ` Russell King - ARM Linux @ 2011-08-15 9:00 ` Eric Miao 2011-08-16 4:07 ` Tanmay Upadhyay 0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread From: Eric Miao @ 2011-08-15 9:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 02:33:09PM +0800, Eric Miao wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Eric Miao <eric.miao@linaro.org> wrote: >> > Interestingly, gplugd has already been registered in the machine database >> > by Ofer. >> > >> > 2625 ? ?GURU_PLUGD ? ? ?gplugd ?Ofer Zaarur ? ? mainlined >> >> Russell, >> >> Any idea if this entry would have any chance to be in -next? > > Updating that file is becoming more of a burden because of all the crap > that's been accumulating in the database. ?It used to be the case at > one time that I could just run a script which grabbed the file and > committed it. ?Those days have long since passed. ?It now requires manual > editing to remove all the crap which now exists. > > For instance, these entries are never going to be added in their > current form: > > +argonst_mp ? ? ? ? ? ? MACH_HYNET_INE ? ? ? ? ?HYNET_INE ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 1319 > +riot_gx2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? MACH_RIOT_VOX ? ? ? ? ? RIOT_VOX ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?2577 > +nautel_am35xx ? ? ? ? ?MACH_NAUTEL_LPC3240 ? ? NAUTEL_LPC3240 ? ? ? ? ?2591 > +gplugd ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? MACH_SHEEVAD ? ? ? ? ? ?SHEEVAD ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2625 > +dig297 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? MACH_OMAP3_CPS ? ? ? ? ?OMAP3_CPS ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 2751 > +lpc_evo ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?MACH_LPC2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? LPC2 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?2777 > +ep3505 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? MACH_EP3517 ? ? ? ? ? ? EP3517 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?3056 > +pydtd ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?MACH_PYRAMID_TD ? ? ? ? PYRAMID_TD ? ? ? ? ? ? ?3295 > +guf_vincell ? ? ? ? ? ?MACH_GUF_PLANET ? ? ? ? GUF_PLANET ? ? ? ? ? ? ?3297 > +geneva_b4 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?MACH_GENEVA_B ? ? ? ? ? GENEVA_B ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?3308 > +ea2468devkit ? ? ? ? ? MACH_LPC2468OEM ? ? ? ? LPC2468OEM ? ? ? ? ? ? ?3389 > +fe2478mblox ? ? ? ? ? ?MACH_LPC2478MICROBLOX ? LPC2478MICROBLOX ? ? ? ?3391 > +msm8960_mtp ? ? ? ? ? ?MACH_MSM8960_MDP ? ? ? ?MSM8960_MDP ? ? ? ? ? ? 3397 > +omap_tabletblaze ? ? ? MACH_OMAP_BLAZE ? ? ? ? OMAP_BLAZE ? ? ? ? ? ? ?3429 > +ge863pro3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?MACH_GE863 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?GE863 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3469 > +arm ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?MACH_ARM ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ARM ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3573 > +omap3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?MACH_OMAP3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?OMAP3 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3574 > +mach_ecog45 ? ? ? ? ? ?MACH_MACH_ECOG45 ? ? ? ?MACH_ECOG45 ? ? ? ? ? ? 3595 > +linux_pad ? ? ? ? ? ? ?MACH_THEPAD ? ? ? ? ? ? THEPAD ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?3608 > +imx ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?MACH_IMX ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?IMX ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3611 > +coreware_sam9260_ ? ? ?MACH_COREWARE_SAM9260_ ?COREWARE_SAM9260_ ? ? ? 3634 > > because either they're an architecture name, a SoC name, or the > machine_is_xxx() does not match the MACH_TYPE_xxx and CONFIG_ macros > (because they haven't talked to me about changing them.) ?That includes > the gplugd/sheevad stuff, which would (continue) to be deleted from the > file I merge for one of those reasons. > > Now that the gplugd stuff is in, is it called gplugd or sheevad? > The registry entry above shows that it was called sheevad but it has > been changed to gplugd. ?The file is called gplugd.c but it uses > sheevad internally. ?So god only knows, it's a complete and utter mess. > > So no, I'm not merging that entry until someone (a) tells me what it > should be, and (b) fixes stuff up to use the correct name. To keep it fully in consistency, I'd like to change them all to gplugd, it's short and there's no ambiguity, and we'll stick to that name. I'm going to file a patch soon to fix all the occurrences of this confusing SHEEVAD. Once that's done, could you also help with the machine entry fix up, or should I file another entry to the database? Let me know. > > That goes for the other entries, some of which I'm just going to expire > from the registry (like the ARM, IMX and OMAP3 ones) so I never have to > bother with them again. > > I'm also thinking that the in-kernel mach-types will _only_ contain those > entries which have code in mainline - eliminating the "touched in the > last 12 months" criterion. ?That certainly does reduce the amount of broken > entries to be dealt with down to just one entry (the gplugd one). > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* No mach-type for SHEEVAD? 2011-08-15 9:00 ` Eric Miao @ 2011-08-16 4:07 ` Tanmay Upadhyay 0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread From: Tanmay Upadhyay @ 2011-08-16 4:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Monday 15 August 2011 02:30 PM, Eric Miao wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 02:33:09PM +0800, Eric Miao wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Eric Miao<eric.miao@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> Interestingly, gplugd has already been registered in the machine database >>>> by Ofer. >>>> >>>> 2625 GURU_PLUGD gplugd Ofer Zaarur mainlined >>> Russell, >>> >>> Any idea if this entry would have any chance to be in -next? >> Updating that file is becoming more of a burden because of all the crap >> that's been accumulating in the database. It used to be the case at >> one time that I could just run a script which grabbed the file and >> committed it. Those days have long since passed. It now requires manual >> editing to remove all the crap which now exists. >> >> For instance, these entries are never going to be added in their >> current form: >> >> +argonst_mp MACH_HYNET_INE HYNET_INE 1319 >> +riot_gx2 MACH_RIOT_VOX RIOT_VOX 2577 >> +nautel_am35xx MACH_NAUTEL_LPC3240 NAUTEL_LPC3240 2591 >> +gplugd MACH_SHEEVAD SHEEVAD 2625 >> +dig297 MACH_OMAP3_CPS OMAP3_CPS 2751 >> +lpc_evo MACH_LPC2 LPC2 2777 >> +ep3505 MACH_EP3517 EP3517 3056 >> +pydtd MACH_PYRAMID_TD PYRAMID_TD 3295 >> +guf_vincell MACH_GUF_PLANET GUF_PLANET 3297 >> +geneva_b4 MACH_GENEVA_B GENEVA_B 3308 >> +ea2468devkit MACH_LPC2468OEM LPC2468OEM 3389 >> +fe2478mblox MACH_LPC2478MICROBLOX LPC2478MICROBLOX 3391 >> +msm8960_mtp MACH_MSM8960_MDP MSM8960_MDP 3397 >> +omap_tabletblaze MACH_OMAP_BLAZE OMAP_BLAZE 3429 >> +ge863pro3 MACH_GE863 GE863 3469 >> +arm MACH_ARM ARM 3573 >> +omap3 MACH_OMAP3 OMAP3 3574 >> +mach_ecog45 MACH_MACH_ECOG45 MACH_ECOG45 3595 >> +linux_pad MACH_THEPAD THEPAD 3608 >> +imx MACH_IMX IMX 3611 >> +coreware_sam9260_ MACH_COREWARE_SAM9260_ COREWARE_SAM9260_ 3634 >> >> because either they're an architecture name, a SoC name, or the >> machine_is_xxx() does not match the MACH_TYPE_xxx and CONFIG_ macros >> (because they haven't talked to me about changing them.) That includes >> the gplugd/sheevad stuff, which would (continue) to be deleted from the >> file I merge for one of those reasons. >> >> Now that the gplugd stuff is in, is it called gplugd or sheevad? >> The registry entry above shows that it was called sheevad but it has >> been changed to gplugd. The file is called gplugd.c but it uses >> sheevad internally. So god only knows, it's a complete and utter mess. >> >> So no, I'm not merging that entry until someone (a) tells me what it >> should be, and (b) fixes stuff up to use the correct name. > To keep it fully in consistency, I'd like to change them all to gplugd, it's > short and there's no ambiguity, and we'll stick to that name. > > I'm going to file a patch soon to fix all the occurrences of this confusing > SHEEVAD. Once that's done, could you also help with the machine entry > fix up, or should I file another entry to the database? Let me know. > I agree with Eric. It should be renamed as gplugd. It was named sheevad by mistake which we couldn't revert. Let me know if I need to generate any patch for this. Sorry for the late response. :( I was off for a couple of days. Thanks, Tanmay >> That goes for the other entries, some of which I'm just going to expire >> from the registry (like the ARM, IMX and OMAP3 ones) so I never have to >> bother with them again. >> >> I'm also thinking that the in-kernel mach-types will _only_ contain those >> entries which have code in mainline - eliminating the "touched in the >> last 12 months" criterion. That certainly does reduce the amount of broken >> entries to be dealt with down to just one entry (the gplugd one). >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linux-arm-kernel mailing list >> linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org >> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-08-16 4:07 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-08-04 9:17 No mach-type for SHEEVAD? Linus Walleij 2011-08-04 9:22 ` Eric Miao 2011-08-12 13:19 ` Linus Walleij 2011-08-15 5:06 ` Haojian Zhuang 2011-08-15 5:28 ` Eric Miao 2011-08-15 6:32 ` Eric Miao 2011-08-15 6:33 ` Eric Miao 2011-08-15 8:53 ` Russell King - ARM Linux 2011-08-15 9:00 ` Eric Miao 2011-08-16 4:07 ` Tanmay Upadhyay
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.