Re: [Minios-devel] [PATCH 00/47] MINI-OS: enable the arm64 support

[Huang Shijie <shijie.huang@xxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 10:51:56AM +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 15/03/18 04:48, Huang Shijie wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 10:21:52AM +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
> >Hi Julien,
> >     I feel sorry that the patch set was not sent outsides.
> >
> >     I checked the archive for minios, and I did not find the email.
> >     It seems there is something wrong with my git config, I will check it,
> >     and fix it, and send it again.
> 
> Are you registered on the minios mailing list?
I did not registered on the minios mailing list, I check it by the archive.
> 
> >>Few generic comments on this series.
> >>
> >>On 03/14/2018 09:39 AM, Huang Shijie wrote:
> >>>  2.) Tests
> >>>    I tested this patch set on Softiron(arm64) and x86_64 platform.
> >>
> >>How about arm32? What is the state after this series?
> >
> >I did not test the arm32, since it even can not pass the compiler for arm32.
> >I suggest we do not care about the arm32, and fix it after the arm64 code is 
> >merged
> >in future.
> 
> Well, we already had a discussion on this on the previous version and agreed
> on a plan. I would like to understand why this was not followed?
I think I have followed the plan:
   1.) change the DTC as a folder, not the submodule.
   2.) refactor the arm32 code the separate folders.

Which is missing from the plan?

Thanks

> 
> >
> >>
> >>On the previous version, I clearly suggested 2 paths to add support for
> >>arm64:
> >>
> >>"I can see two solutions going forward:
> >>         1) The arm directory is first reshaped to welcome arm64. This 
> >> means:
> >>                 * moving out arm32 specific code
> >>                 * switch to LPAE page-table
> >>                 * introducing helpers for common code to call arch-specific
> >>code
> >>            On the code is reshaped, the arm64 series is added on top.
> >>
> >>         2) Start the arm64 port from a clean slate and then port arm32 
> >> over.
> >>
> >>Knowing the state of the arm32 port, I would lean towards 2). This would
> >>allow more flexibility and make easier to review. At the moment, I have to
> >>hunt down the code to see what is missing."
> >>
> >>This series does not follow any of them and end up to have #if
> >>defined(__aarch64__) in the common code. This really defeating the purpose
> >>of the refactoring below.
> >>
> >>To be clear, I am not suggesting to add arm32 port, I am just asking to not
> >>make things worst than the current state.
> >The current state is already very worst for arm32 now. :)
> >
> >Without this patch set, the arm32 is not work; with this patch set, the arm32
> >still cannot work...
> 
> So what's the point to keep that code around? This making this series nearly
I moved the arm32 code to the separate folder, and do not change it.
I thought I have done it from a clear slate.
Now, I found I feel confused about the "clean slate"..

Thanks
Huang Shijie
> impossible to review and just a waste of time for reviewing it.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> -- 
> Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Minios-devel mailing list
Minios-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/minios-devel