LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Hogan <>
To: Arnd Bergmann <>
Cc: Ralf Baechle <>,
	linux-arch <>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <>,
	Paul Burton <>,
	Matt Redfearn <>,
	Marcin Nowakowski <>,
	Matthew Fortune <>
Subject: Re: Introducing a nanoMIPS port for Linux
Date: Fri, 4 May 2018 14:24:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180504132432.GA30458@jamesdev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2064 bytes --]

On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 06:40:07PM -0400, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:51 PM, James Hogan <> wrote:
> > Due to the binary incompatibility between previous MIPS architecture
> > generations and nanoMIPS, and the significantly revamped compiler ABI,
> > where for the first time, a single Linux kernel would not be expected to
> > handle both old and new ABIs, we have decided to also take the
> > opportunity to modernise the Linux user ABI for nanoMIPS, making as much
> > use of generic interfaces as possible and modernising the true
> > architecture specific parts.
> >
> > This is similar to what a whole new kernel architecture would be
> > expected to adopt, but has been done within the existing MIPS
> > architecture port to allow reuse of the existing MIPS code, most of
> > which does not depend on these ABI specifics. Details of the proposed
> > Linux user ABI changes for nanoMIPS can be found here:
> While I haven't looked at the individual changes, I wonder whether
> it would be useful to make this new ABI use 64-bit time_t from
> the start, using the new system calls that Deepa and I have been
> posting recently.

Personally I'm all for squeezing as much API cleanup in as possible
before its merged, though obviously there'll be a point when the ABI may
need to be frozen, at which point we'll mostly have to accept what we
have within reason.

> There are still a few things to be worked out:
> only the first of four sets of syscall patches is merged so far,
> and we have a couple of areas that will require further ABI changes
> (sound, sockets, media and maybe a couple of smaller drivers),
> so it depends on the overall timing. If you would otherwise merge
> the patches quickly, then it may be better to just follow the existing
> 32-bit architectures and add the 64-bit entry points when we do it
> for everyone.

I think it'll likely be a couple of cycles before it gets merged anyway.
There's still work to do, and limited resources.


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2018-05-04 13:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-05-02 21:51 James Hogan
2018-05-03 22:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
2018-05-04 13:24   ` James Hogan [this message]
2018-05-04 23:53     ` Arnd Bergmann

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20180504132432.GA30458@jamesdev \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: Introducing a nanoMIPS port for Linux' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).