Introduce support for little endian PowerPC

[Kumar Gala]

On Oct 1, 2010, at 7:14 AM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

> On Fri, 2010-10-01 at 07:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> 
>>> From a community aspect is anyone actually going to use this?  Is
>> this going to be the equivalent of voyager on x86?  I've got nothing
>> against some of the endian clean ups this introduces.  However the
>> changes to misc_32.S are a bit ugly from a readability point of view.
>> Just seems like this is likely to bit-rot pretty quickly.
>> 
>> I'm with Kumar on this one.  Why would we want to support this?  I
>> can't say I would be very willing to help anyone run in LE mode, let
>> alone have it randomly selectable. 
> 
> There's some good reasons on the field ... sadly.
> 
> At this stage this is mostly an experiment, which went pretty well in
> the sense that it's actually quite easy and a lot of the "fixes" are
> actually reasonable cleanups to carry.
> 
> Now, the main reasons in practice are anything touching graphics.
> 
> There's quite a few IP cores out there for SoCs that don't have HW
> swappers, and -tons- of more or less ugly code that can't deal with non
> native pixel ordering (hell, even Xorg isn't good at it, we really only
> support cards that have HW swappers today).
> 
> There's an even bigger pile of application code that deals with graphics
> without any regard for endianness and is essentially unfixable.
> 
> So it becomes a matter of potential customers that will take it if it
> does LE and won't if it doesn't ...
> 
> Now, I don't have a problem supporting that as the maintainer, as I
> said, from a kernel standpoint, it's all quite easy to deal with. Some
> of the most gory aspects in misc_32.S could probably be done in a way
> that is slightly more readable, but the approach is actually good, I
> think, to have macros to represent the high/low parts of register pairs.
> 
> So at this stage, I'd say, let's not dismiss it just because we all come
> from a long education of hating LE for the sake of it :-)
> 
> It makes -some- sense, even if it's not necessarily on the markets
> targeted by FSL today for example. At least from the kernel POV, it
> doesn't seem to me to be a significant support burden at all.
> 
> Cheers,
> Ben.

I'm not against it, and I agree some of the patches seem like good clean up.  I'm concerned about this bit rotting pretty quickly.

- k