From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Williams Subject: Re: [microblaze-uclinux] Re: microblaze syscall list Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:04:46 +1000 Message-ID: <4813DF3E.6080800@itee.uq.edu.au> References: <87a5b0800804220513t75690ceao938a288596b5ad0c@mail.gmail.com> <200804221515.28075.arnd@arndb.de> <480FA729.3000406@seznam.cz> <200804241311.09881.arnd@arndb.de> <4810D4A4.7050900@seznam.cz> <4811A623.80104@itee.uq.edu.au> <20080425100614.GB14990@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080425100614.GB14990@parisc-linux.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, Arnd Bergmann , Will Newton , Linux Kernel list , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, git@xilinx.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 07:36:35PM +1000, John Williams wrote: >> Please remember that MicroBlaze has been around as an arch for > 4 >> years, just not in the kernel.org tree. These older style syscall >> interfaces are all part of the uClibc and glibc ports for MicroBlaze. > > So is it fair to say that you now understand this was the Wrong Way To > Do Things, and if anyone asks, you'd recommend getting an arch merged > into kernel.org sooner rather than later? > Without question! If some abject humility will smooth the path for MicroBlaze, I'm happy to show it. By way of history, as a no-MMU arch starting on the 2.4 kernel series, there was no home for us in kernel.org originally, however we were always in the uClinux "mainline" at uclinux.org from the first release I did back in 2002. We jumped in at 2.6.20 basing from some vendor patches that were never going to fly in kernel.org. Since then we have been improving and cleaning them up to where they might actually stand a chance. I am lobbying Xilinx (the effective "silicon vendor") as hard as I can to support both the push to and maintenance within kernel.org. They had someone at ELC in Mountain View week before last, which is a good sign I think. Cheers, John From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uki.us.mooball.net ([66.98.178.13]:44654 "EHLO uki.us.mooball.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752877AbYD0CGo (ORCPT ); Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:06:44 -0400 Message-ID: <4813DF3E.6080800@itee.uq.edu.au> Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 12:04:46 +1000 From: John Williams MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [microblaze-uclinux] Re: microblaze syscall list References: <87a5b0800804220513t75690ceao938a288596b5ad0c@mail.gmail.com> <200804221515.28075.arnd@arndb.de> <480FA729.3000406@seznam.cz> <200804241311.09881.arnd@arndb.de> <4810D4A4.7050900@seznam.cz> <4811A623.80104@itee.uq.edu.au> <20080425100614.GB14990@parisc-linux.org> In-Reply-To: <20080425100614.GB14990@parisc-linux.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au, Arnd Bergmann , Will Newton , Linux Kernel list , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, git@xilinx.com Message-ID: <20080427020446.3cepSF3siwinARttuMRAv-xIKCeDV3ljie4ZRHv5K6A@z> Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 07:36:35PM +1000, John Williams wrote: >> Please remember that MicroBlaze has been around as an arch for > 4 >> years, just not in the kernel.org tree. These older style syscall >> interfaces are all part of the uClibc and glibc ports for MicroBlaze. > > So is it fair to say that you now understand this was the Wrong Way To > Do Things, and if anyone asks, you'd recommend getting an arch merged > into kernel.org sooner rather than later? > Without question! If some abject humility will smooth the path for MicroBlaze, I'm happy to show it. By way of history, as a no-MMU arch starting on the 2.4 kernel series, there was no home for us in kernel.org originally, however we were always in the uClinux "mainline" at uclinux.org from the first release I did back in 2002. We jumped in at 2.6.20 basing from some vendor patches that were never going to fly in kernel.org. Since then we have been improving and cleaning them up to where they might actually stand a chance. I am lobbying Xilinx (the effective "silicon vendor") as hard as I can to support both the push to and maintenance within kernel.org. They had someone at ELC in Mountain View week before last, which is a good sign I think. Cheers, John