lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: RISC-V Linux Port v8
From
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 09:15:39 PDT (-0700), Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 11:56 PM, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com> wrote:
>> I know it may not be the ideal time to submit a patch set right now, as it's
>> the middle of the merge window, but things have calmed down quite a bit in the
>> last month so I thought it would be good to get everyone on the same page.
>> There's been a handful of changes since the last patch set, but most of them
>> are fairly minor:
>>
>> * We changed PAGE_OFFSET to allowing mapping more physical memory on 64-bit
>> systems. This is user configurable, as it triggers a different code model
>> that generates slightly less efficient code.
>> * The device tree binding documentation is back, I'd managed to lose it at some
>> point.
>> * We now pass the atomic64 test suite.
>> * The SBI timer driver has been refactored.
>>
>> To the best of by knowledge, all the feedback we've gotten so far has been
>> taken into account for this patch set. If I've missed anyone's feedback I'm
>> sorry, just point it out and I'll try to dig it up.
>>
>> Just to be clear on timelines: we're not pushing to get into 4.14, but we are
>> hoping we can make it in for 4.15. If I understand the process correctly, we
>> should aim to get into linux-next some time in the next month so we can be
>> merged during the next merge window.
>
> I looked at all patches again and found a few minor things that we
> should clarify, but overall I think this looks good.

Thanks!

> What I think you should do as the next step is to separate the
> architecture specific changes from the device drivers and put
> them into one branch that you ask Stephen Rothwell to add to
> linux-next.

OK. Would it be possible to get the MAINTAINERS patch merged as part of this
merge window? If I'm ready to actually start getting things merged I'd like to
have a proper tree and I've been told this is a prerequisite.

> For the driver patches, I would submit them separately now
> with a reduced Cc-list that just contains the respective
> subsystem maintainers as well as the relevant mailing lists.

Makes sense. I'll wait a bit for some more feedback and if there's nothing
major then I'll split things up for the v9.

Thanks!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-13 22:19    [W:0.035 / U:3.212 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site