Re: Patches (was Re: Problem with L4Linux accessing ethernet clocks)

On Monday 16. October 2017 00.48.38 Adam Lackorzynski wrote:
> On Sat Oct 14, 2017 at 17:09:46 +0200, Paul Boddie wrote:
> > On Wednesday 11. October 2017 15.33.58 Manolis Ragkousis wrote:
> > > Finally I have a question, Are you accepting patches for L4 and
> > > L4Linux? I could make my git patches more presentable and send them
> > > here if you want, to be added to your upstream repo.
> > 
> > I would be interested to know about this as well. I sent some patches to
> > the list a while back, but nothing was really said about whether there
> > was any interest in incorporating them upstream.
> 
> Principally yes but this also depends on time etc., see other mail.

Yes, from my own perspective I understand this well. :-)

> > One of the patches made the stated CI20 support actually work, thanks to
> > Sarah's guidance, so it must surely be of interest to more than just me.
> > The
> 
> You're talking about the cache instruction issue?

Yes (ci20-rdhwr.diff). I was also potentially interested in supporting other 
instructions that related SoCs do not support, at least where those do not 
support floating point instructions natively, and where L4Re/Fiasco.OC might 
not be buildable using "soft float" instructions (advice welcome!), but this 
is a different topic altogether (and one that I am not likely to explore in 
the near future).

> > other patches attempted to support gcc instead of the vendor compiler,
> > which I would also think would be desirable (especially given the
> > corporate "pass the parcel" game going on with the vendor in question at
> > the moment).
> 
> Well, then lets discuss those changes.

Thinking back, there was some uncertainty about whether it was appropriate to 
generate position-independent code when building Fiasco.OC, where I had 
introduced initialisation of t9 so that global offset table lookups functioned 
correctly (ci20-gcc-cpload.diff). There was also a trivial patch changing the 
compiler prefix for Debian (ci20-gcc-debian.diff).

You also mentioned the following patch when I experienced problems that had 
something to do with variable or member initialisation:

http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/pipermail/l4-hackers/2017/008005.html

Was this merged upstream in the end?

I was rebasing my own large patch against an updated upstream repository, but 
other matters took priority and I haven't looked at it again. I had been 
trying to write a few device drivers for the CI20, specifically for GPIO, CPM 
and I2C, with the latter being unreliable and rather annoying.

Paul