Re: Broadcom XLP support

[Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>]

On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:04 PM, ANDY KENNEDY <ANDY.KENNEDY@adtran.com> wrote:
>> > On this score, they did.  I believe they contracted the toolchain changes
>> > through someone like codesourcery.  The primary guy that knew about this
>> > processor recently resigned from Broadcom, whether the new people
>> > have the inclination to push back to you is unknown.  It appears that
>> > the contractor for the toolchain pushed back to openembedded in place
>> > of directly to you.  If I were to give you the original patch against
>> > 2.24, would that be acceptable to you?
>>
>> Note the main reason why they pushed back to openembedded was because
>> it was a requirement for windriver's toolchain instead of fully
>> upstream :).
>> Anyways I pushed the octeon3 changes upstream so I did not have to
>> support windriver or openembedded folks they could just grab the patch
>> from upstream.
>
> Hmmm, does this mean there is bad blood with you guys on this?

No I did not mean it that way.  Basically it is easier to support
(embedded) distros via upstreaming instead of to carry around a patch
or directly supporting them.

>
> Hopefully you won't lump me into that camp, as all I want is to make it
> so that I can grab the latest binutils (three years from now) and not
> have to go through the pain of pulling this patch forward.

Yes totally understand the pain of having to carry around patches.  I
have now worked at three different companies where they carry around
patches.  Cavium has been the best in terms of upstreaming things
early on right after the product is released.  Apple was the worse.

Thanks,
Andrew

>
> BTW, I have the patch for 2.26 as well.  I can send both, again, if that
> would be acceptable to you.
>
> On the other suggestion, I'm working on that one and will give it
> a try in the morning.
>
> Thanks again,
> Andy
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Andy
>> >
>> >>
>> >>  HTH,
>> >>
>> >>   Maciej