From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6391AB70D6 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2010 03:59:57 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: Introduce support for little endian PowerPC Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1081) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Kumar Gala In-Reply-To: <1285935283.2463.78.camel@pasglop> Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 12:59:31 -0500 Message-Id: References: <1285916771-18033-1-git-send-email-imunsie@au1.ibm.com> <2C5357FA-F87F-457E-B5C1-0DCC5A842DE7@kernel.crashing.org> <1285935283.2463.78.camel@pasglop> To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, paulus@samba.org, Ian Munsie , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Oct 1, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 07:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >>=20 >>> =46rom a community aspect is anyone actually going to use this? Is >> this going to be the equivalent of voyager on x86? I've got nothing >> against some of the endian clean ups this introduces. However the >> changes to misc_32.S are a bit ugly from a readability point of view. >> Just seems like this is likely to bit-rot pretty quickly. >>=20 >> I'm with Kumar on this one. Why would we want to support this? I >> can't say I would be very willing to help anyone run in LE mode, let >> alone have it randomly selectable.=20 >=20 > There's some good reasons on the field ... sadly. >=20 > At this stage this is mostly an experiment, which went pretty well in > the sense that it's actually quite easy and a lot of the "fixes" are > actually reasonable cleanups to carry. >=20 > Now, the main reasons in practice are anything touching graphics. >=20 > There's quite a few IP cores out there for SoCs that don't have HW > swappers, and -tons- of more or less ugly code that can't deal with = non > native pixel ordering (hell, even Xorg isn't good at it, we really = only > support cards that have HW swappers today). >=20 > There's an even bigger pile of application code that deals with = graphics > without any regard for endianness and is essentially unfixable. >=20 > So it becomes a matter of potential customers that will take it if it > does LE and won't if it doesn't ... >=20 > Now, I don't have a problem supporting that as the maintainer, as I > said, from a kernel standpoint, it's all quite easy to deal with. Some > of the most gory aspects in misc_32.S could probably be done in a way > that is slightly more readable, but the approach is actually good, I > think, to have macros to represent the high/low parts of register = pairs. >=20 > So at this stage, I'd say, let's not dismiss it just because we all = come > from a long education of hating LE for the sake of it :-) >=20 > It makes -some- sense, even if it's not necessarily on the markets > targeted by FSL today for example. At least from the kernel POV, it > doesn't seem to me to be a significant support burden at all. >=20 > Cheers, > Ben. I'm not against it, and I agree some of the patches seem like good clean = up. I'm concerned about this bit rotting pretty quickly. - k