Hi Palmer, On 2017-05-23 at 05:36:55 +0200, Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 22 May 2017 18:16:20 PDT (-0700), [email protected] wrote: > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Palmer Dabbelt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We'd like to submit for inclusion in Linux a port for the RISC-V > >> architecture. > >> While it is doubtlessly not complete, we think it is far enough along to > >> start > >> the upstreaming process. Our binutils and GCC ports have been accepted and > >> released, and we plan on submitting glibc patches soon. > >> > >> This port targets Version 1.10 of the RISC-V Privileged ISA, and supports > >> both > >> the RV32 and RV64 user ISAs. The RISC-V community and the 60-some member > >> companies of the RISC-V Foundation are quite eager to have a single, > >> standard > >> Linux port. We thank you in advance for your help in this process and for > >> your > >> feedback on the software contribution itself. > >> > >> These patches build and boot on top of 4.12-rc2. I understand that the > >> merge > >> window is closed, but it was suggested that the best time to submit a new > >> architecture port would be right after an RC2 as the earliest point at > >> which > >> the tree is usually generally churn-free enough. While we optimistically > >> hope > >> that we can get the port in for the 4.13 merge window, we're also eager to > >> ensure that the user-visible ABI is sane so we can proceed with our glibc > >> port. > >> We'd like to at least get any user ABI issues shaken out as soon as > >> possible, > >> even if we don't make it into 4.13.
[...] > > I'll add more comments on some of the individual patches; expect this > > review to take a little while. Reposting once or twice a week to show > > incorporated changes can be useful; more than that and it can be > > harder to follow along in the discussion. It all depends on how much > > comments you end up receiving. > > OK. I'll incorporate all the feedback I get over the next week or so into a > v2 > patch set. You might want to Cc [email protected] on future iterations of this patchset where there's less "noise" than on LKML and the relevant people are more likely to notice ;) Likewise, the device-tree specific bits (e.g. the bindings documentation) should probably be Cc'ed to [email protected] Tobias
