Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] riscv: Work to remove kernel dependence on the M-extension | From | "Michael T. Kloos" <> | Date | Thu, 10 Mar 2022 23:54:24 -0500 |
| |
Well at least I can take some satisfaction in that it seems that on my 2nd patch sent to the Linux kernel, I got it right the first time. No one has complained about problems with the code itself, just that they don't want the feature. I have also received no errors back from the build bot.
For now, I will try to maintain this port on my own. Thank you for the consideration Palmer.
Michael
On Thu, 2022-03-10 at 20:29 -0800, Palmer Dabbelt wrote: > On Thu, 10 Mar 2022 05:37:27 PST (-0800), Michael@MichaelKloos.com wrote: > > Is there something I can do that would help alleviate your concerns or > > apprehension? > > IMO this is one of those cases where having hardware is required. > > I can understand the goal of providing a Linux port for the minimal > RISC-V compatible system, but IIUC the minimal RISC-V compatible system > is any object associated with a member of the RISC-V foundation that > said member attests is a RISC-V system. There's really no way to > implement Linux on all such systems so we have to set the bar somewhere, > and bar is generally set at "more time will be spent using this than > maintaining it". Systems without M have generally not met that bar, and > I don't see anything changing now. > > If you have users then I'm happy to reconsider, the goal here is to make > real systems work. That said: we've already got enough trouble trying > to make actual shipping hardware function correctly, we're all going to > lose our minds trying to chase around everything that could in theory be > a RISC-V system but doesn't actually exist. > > > > > On 3/10/2022 8:22 AM, Michael T. Kloos wrote: > > > > > Some other thoughts: > > > It sounds like I am not the first person to want this feature and I > > > probably won't be the last. I created the change for my own reasons, the > > > same as any other contributor. I think we all know that I can not pull > > > out some chart and say, "This many people want this and here is why." I > > > live in central Ohio and have been doing this as a hobby. I don't even > > > know anyone else who knows about systems and operating system development. > > > If the justification that you are looking for is that I as some > > > hypothetical developer at a major tech company is about to release a new > > > RISC-V chip without M support but we want it to run Linux, I can not > > > provide that answer. It sounds a bit like some software or hardware, > > > chicken or the egg anyway. Trying to maintain my own fork if people > > > start contributing patches with incompatible assembly scares me. > > > Michael
| |