From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M7uQf-0006E8-Ro for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 23 May 2009 12:50:37 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M7uQf-0006Dc-0h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 23 May 2009 12:50:37 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43464 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M7uQe-0006DV-Ql for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 23 May 2009 12:50:36 -0400 Received: from flounder.pepperfish.net ([87.237.62.181]:37700) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M7uQe-0000VS-5Z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 23 May 2009 12:50:36 -0400 Date: Sat, 23 May 2009 17:50:33 +0100 From: Vincent Sanders Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/16] ARM Add ARM 920T identifiers Message-ID: <20090523165033.GC8037@derik> References: <20090423171503.GC4629@derik> <20090423174513.GD4629@derik> <200904301708.01385.paul@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200904301708.01385.paul@codesourcery.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Paul Brook On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 05:08:01PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote: > > env->cp15.c0_cpuid = id; > > switch (id) { > > + case ARM_CPUID_ARM920T: > > + break; > > This is woefully incomplete. At minimum it needs a comment describing how this > is a lie. I have worked out what you meant was that the copro 15 registers needed configuring appropriately in this case. This I have done and the new series, integrating others feedback, has been posted. This is against the git server as of a few minutes ago. I would be grateful if you would at least consider this series for merging. If it is not yet suitable could you please provide some constructive explanation as to what further changes are required? At the very least the core ARM920T patch could be merged without much controversy? The series has been presented several times over a number of years always incorporating all feedback given. Despite this little progress seems to have been made and I am beginning to wonder if there is any point in continuing? -- Regards Vincent