Messages in this thread |  | | | From | Milton Miller <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arch/c6x: new architecture port for linux | | Date | Wed, 11 May 2011 20:13:51 -0000 |
| |
On Wed, 11 May 2011 around 17:11:19 EST, Mark Salter wrote: > This patch series adds support for a new architecture (arch/c6x) to > Linux. This architecture supports members of the Texas Instruments > family of C64x single and multicore DSPs. The multicore DSPs do not > support cache coherancy, so are not suitable for SMP. Also, these are > no-mmu processors. This core architecture is VLIW with an instruction > set optimized for DSP applications. For details on the processors:
So all the changelogs talk about C64x but the arch and all the configs are called c6x? Is it that hard to type 2 digits? Or do you expect an additional chip that breaks the C64 but would fit the C6x name?
Also, a couple of one liners while preparing my comments on hvc_c6x:
[09/16] C6X: add kernel files
in kernel/setup.c you include linux/delay.h multiple times
[11/16] C6X: add lib files
arch/c6x/lib/memset.c
(1) file header says linux/arch/c6x/lib/memcmp.c (you should probably just delete such headers, they are just maintence errors)
(2) it appears to mach lib/string.c implementation except (1) register (2) uses post-increment instead of pre-increment. Does it matter with gcc?
arch/c6x/lib/memcmp.c your version returns -1 or 1 while string.c returns the difference after promotion to int. man page for userspace says just integer less than or greater, so I guess this is ok. But is this more efficient, or could you use the generic version?
milton
|  |