linux-kernel - Re: Working upstream toolchain for avr32?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071214205542.GO3851@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Fri, 14 Dec 2007 21:55:42 +0100
From:	Robert Schwebel <r.schwebel@...gutronix.de>
To:	Mike Frysinger <vapier.adi@...il.com>
Cc:	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>, hskinnemoen@...el.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Working upstream toolchain for avr32?

On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 03:35:36PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > Upstream plus a well defined patch stack with well documented patches
> > would definitely be preferred here.

Well, tell me that it is wrong, but isn't it common community
methodology to have rebasable things like patch stacks or git trees
against mainline instead of disconnected vendor trees?

> as you've been told in the past, the things are documented. go read
> the ChangeLog.bfin file.

You didn't explain how for example your trunk [1] is related to mainline
[2].

> > Ah, that sounds pretty good! At the moment we still need three different
> > toolchains to build u-boot, the kernel
>
> maybe, if you're using different version of u-boot and the kernel.
> but that isnt a good idea anyways.

We use mainline linux and u-boot-v2, which is surely not what ADI
supplies officially to their random commercial customers. Nevertheless,
it is the way community technology works elsewhere.

> > and the icebear tools, which is not very satisfying.
>
> there's nothing we can do about this and you're complaining to the
> wrong people. icebear is a third party binary-only tool.

Hmm, the sources are here: http://www.section5.ch/dsp/icebear/bfloader-1.2.tgz

Do you have a good hint for a better low level debug tool? For all other
processors like ARM, PowerPC and ColdFire we use a BDI2000, but it seems
not to be available for blackfin.

> if you dont like the way the third party does things, complain to
> the third party. or dont buy their product.

Thanks for the constructive comments.

> we are upstream and we've given you blessed toolchains.

"Trust us, we are $BIG_VENDOR" is not the way these things are usually
done. Sorry, I don't buy this. Chip vendors just too often lose interest
in supporting their users once they have moved to the next generations
of chips or whatever.

Can you explain why bfin should not have gcc.gnu.org as it's upstream?

Robert

[1] http://blackfin.uclinux.org/gf/project/toolchain/scmsvn/?action=browse&path=%2Ftrunk%2F
[2] http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/
-- 
 Dipl.-Ing. Robert Schwebel | http://www.pengutronix.de
 Pengutronix - Linux Solutions for Science and Industry
   Handelsregister:  Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686
     Hannoversche Str. 2, 31134 Hildesheim, Germany
   Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 |  Fax: +49-5121-206917-9

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/