kexec 2.0.2 MIPS

[ANDY KENNEDY]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Simon Horman [mailto:horms at verge.net.au]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 12:57 AM
> To: Maxim Uvarov
> Cc: ANDY KENNEDY; kexec at lists.infradead.org; Matt Evans
> Subject: Re: kexec 2.0.2 MIPS
> 
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:35:42PM -0800, Maxim Uvarov wrote:
> > 2012/1/24 Simon Horman <horms at verge.net.au>:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > sorry for the extensive delay in responding to this.
> > > I am now back from Christmas, New Year, holidays and
> > > attending LCA 2012.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 05:27:31AM +0000, ANDY KENNEDY wrote:
> > >> Simon/All,
> > >>
> > >> After two months, I'm back working on this again.  After 3 hours
> > >> tonight, I have the final result of what you told me to do.  Looks like,
> > >> based on the comment:
> > >>
> > >>     - remove kexec/arch/mips/mips-setup-simple.S which prepares cmdline for
> > >>       new kernel, it is better to move this work to kernel code. BTW this code was
> > >>       compilable only on o32 because of t4 is not defined on 64-64 or n32 MIPS ABIs.
> > >>
> > >> The problem is that my 2.6.36.2 apparently doesn't have whatever Maxim
> > >> is talking about.  Therefore, the newer versions must not be backwards
> > >> compatible.  Perhaps this is okay with you guys.  If so, I'll just make
> > >> sure to include a patch to BuildRoot that clearly states that the v2.0.1
> > >> is the only version that works with *some* versions of MIPS.  If you
> > >> guys were expecting this to be backwards compatible, I'll gladly work
> > >> with you to test whatever you need checked out.  Just let me know.
> > >
> > > It is not apparent to me that the kernel code Maxim makes mention of
> > > exists in any released kernel. I think that the best option at this
> > > stage would be to revert that portion of his change.
> > >
> > > Maxim, do you have any thoughts on this?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, kernel patches were not accepted and looks like stuck linux-mips@
> > queue forever.
> > Reverting this patches it ok for me especially if somebody going to
> > work on them. As I remember
> > the was problem with supporting all mips ABIs (o32, n32, 32-64). It's
> > mostly related to asm purgatory
> > code. It will be nice if somebody can synchronize kernel and user land
> > parts and make mips kexec code
> > board independent. I think at this time it should be much easy since
> > mips supports device tree.
> 
> Thanks Maxim.
> 
> Andy can you prepare a patch to revert the problematic portion
> of the change?

I'll do my best.  I don’t know when I'll be able to get to it, given
that I've had scope change on my project 3 times in the last week.

Andy