* Re: [PATCH v3] arch: Kconfig: Let all architectures set endian explicitly
2014-08-24 8:38 ` [PATCH v3] arch: Kconfig: Let all architectures set endian explicitly Chen Gang
@ 2014-08-25 12:26 ` Chen Gang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Chen Gang @ 2014-08-25 12:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ralf Baechle
Cc: Arnd Bergmann, akpm, rth, ink, mattst88, vgupta,
Geert Uytterhoeven, Jean Delvare, linux, catalin.marinas,
will.deacon, hskinnemoen, egtvedt, realmz6, msalter, a-jacquiot,
starvik, jesper.nilsson, dhowells, rkuo, tony.luck, fenghua.yu,
takata, james.hogan, Michal Simek, yasutake.koichi, jonas, jejb,
deller, Benjamin Herrenschmidt, paulus, mpe, Mart
Hello all:
It seems no any additional rejections for it. I guess, I need split the
'big' patch into pieces, and each send to its' related mailing list, so
let it not like a spam. And the schedule may like:
- Firstly, send patch for "init/Kconfig" to add CPU_*_ENDIAN. If pass
checking (hope it can be passed checking), then
- Send each related patch to each related architectures which already
knew their ENDIAN attributes in config time (24 patches, I guess),
then
- Make patch for Kbuild to support __BUILDING_TIME_BIG_ENDIAN__, and
pass checking (hope I can finish), then
- Finish left architectures which need __BUILDING_TIME_BIG_ENDIAN__
(4 patches, I guess).
Welcome any ideas, suggestions, or completions. And if no additional
reply, I shall not send any additional information any more to avoid
spam to other members.
Thanks.
On 08/24/2014 04:38 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> Hello Maintainers:
>
> Is this patch OK? If it pass basic checking, please let me know, and I
> shall try to make another related patch for KBuild (I can do nothing
> related with Kbuild, before get confirmation for this patch).
>
> Thanks.
>
> On 8/15/14 17:01, Chen Gang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 8/15/14 6:14, Chen Gang wrote:
>>> On 08/15/2014 02:04 AM, Ralf Baechle wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK, thanks, I assumes when support both endian, the default choice is
>>> CPU_BIG_ENDIAN, although no default value for choice (originally, I did
>>> worry about it).
>>>
>>>> So I think you can just drop the MIPS segment from your patch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If what I assumes is correct, what you said sounds reasonable to me.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So for me, it is harmless to add CPU_*_ENDIAN explicitly, and can let
>> other members don't need think of.
>>
>> By the way, for sh, it is almost the same case, except it contents the
>> default value, for me, it is clear enough, so I skip sh architecture in
>> this patch.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
--
Chen Gang
Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread