On Apr 27, 9:10am, Srinivasa Prasad Thirumalachar wrote:
> Subject: Re: IP35 support
> According to Kanoj Sarcar ...
> >
> > What is the story on the SN1/IP35 support in the oss tree? I saw some
> > checkins go in for that, then a set of reverse checkins to pull that out.
>
> There were some legal issues to be resolved before the bedrock (IP35)
> features were made public. Like the SN1 MIPS product should be released
> first etc.
>
I understood Rich's latest email on the subject as saying it was ok to check
in whatever sn1 code we needed into oss:
From: Rich Altmaier <richa@cthulhu>
I don't feel that exposing SN chipset programming information is a problem.
I don't think we should make public the chip programming manual, but header
files and code is not a problem.
If we were prepared to release code today for SN, this would be fine.
- leo
> At this point, if it is possible it should be removed from oss.
>
> >
> > Anyway, there is still a lot of IP35 hooks lying around in source files
> > (and makefiles).
> >
> > > gid CONFIG_SGI_IP35
> > include/asm-mips64/sn/addrs.h:24:#elif defined(CONFIG_SGI_IP35)
> > include/asm-mips64/sn/agent.h:21:#elif defined(CONFIG_SGI_IP35)
> > include/asm-mips64/sn/agent.h:23:#endif /* !CONFIG_SGI_IP27 &&
!CONFIG_SGI_IP35 */
> > include/asm-mips64/sn/klconfig.h:54:#elif defined(CONFIG_SGI_IP35)
> > include/asm-mips64/sn/klconfig.h:65:#endif /* !CONFIG_SGI_IP27 &&
!CONFIG_SGI_IP35 */
> > include/asm-mips64/sn/kldir.h:239:#elif defined(CONFIG_SGI_IP35)
> >
> > If we are not planning to do the IP35 work right now, maybe we should
> > just pull all these out too?
>
> Work can proceed internally in a ptools tree, but they should not
> go out on OSS.
>
>
> Thanks
> srinivasa
>
> >
> > Kanoj
> >
>-- End of excerpt from Srinivasa Prasad Thirumalachar
--
Leo Dagum SGI Mountain View, CA 94043 (650-933-2179)
|