On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:45:34 PDT (-0700), tklau...@distanz.ch wrote: > Hi Palmer, > > On 2017-05-23 at 05:36:55 +0200, Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 22 May 2017 18:16:20 PDT (-0700), o...@lixom.net wrote: >> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Palmer Dabbelt <pal...@dabbelt.com> 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 linux-a...@vger.kernel.org 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 > devicet...@vger.kernel.org
OK, thanks. I'll do that for the v2.
