[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190829105615.GA8968@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2019 03:56:15 -0700
From: "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>
To: Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@....com>
Cc: "hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"aou@...s.berkeley.edu" <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
"alankao@...estech.com" <alankao@...estech.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"anup@...infault.org" <anup@...infault.org>,
"palmer@...ive.com" <palmer@...ive.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"rppt@...ux.ibm.com" <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
"alexios.zavras@...el.com" <alexios.zavras@...el.com>,
"gary@...yguo.net" <gary@...yguo.net>,
"paul.walmsley@...ive.com" <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
"linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] RISC-V: Mark existing SBI as legacy SBI.
On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 08:37:27PM +0000, Atish Patra wrote:
> That would split the implementation between C file & assembly file for
> no good reason.
>
> How about moving everything in sbi.c and just write everything inline
> assembly there.
Well, if we implement it in pure assembly that would be the entire
implementation, wouldn't it?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists