Re: RISC-V Linux Port v1

[Palmer Dabbelt]

On Mon, 22 May 2017 23:45:34 PDT (-0700), tklauser@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hi Palmer,
>
> On 2017-05-23 at 05:36:55 +0200, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 May 2017 18:16:20 PDT (-0700), olof@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 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
> devicetree@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

OK, thanks.  I'll do that for the v2.