Re: [PATCH] [ARM] Add support for the Samsung Exynos M1 processor

[Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>]

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 4:09 PM, James Greenhalgh
<james.greenhalgh@arm.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2015 at 07:53:12PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Sebastian Pop <sebpop@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 5:51 PM, James Greenhalgh
>> > <james.greenhalgh@arm.com> wrote:
>> >> Trunk is currently in Stage 4 development, these patches are fairly
>> >> low-risk, but they are certainly not regression fixes. I'll defer
>> >> to port maintainers and release managers for the final say, but in my
>> >> opinion it would not be appropriate to commit them until Stage 1
>> >> development for GCC 6.0 opens (hopefully in a few weeks).
>> >
>> > I thought that adding flags for new processors was ok at any time,
>> > even to backport.
>>
>> It's usually risk vs reward on a per patch basis and I don't think of
>> it as a general rule. We've always avoided the CPU tuning backport
>> rule to the FSF branches. The smaller the CPU tuning patch - the
>> better it is and in this case I'm comfortable with the patch going in
>> as it is adding another tuning option, using existing constructs and
>> is not invasive in the backend.
>
> Thanks for the clarification Ramana.
>
> In which case, and now that I've seen that binutils support has also
> been accepted, the AArch64 part is OK to commit (assuming no regressions
> and no objections from Richard or Jakub).

I will wait to hear from Richi or Jakub before committing the two patches.

>
> It would be great if you could follow these up with a patch for
> changes.html for GCC 5 for both ARM and AArch64.

Attached.  I will commit this after the two patches adding the exynos-m1 flags.

Thanks,
Sebastian

Attachment: changes.diff
Description: Text document