Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:17:33 +0100 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] raid6: altivec support | From | Sven Luther <> |
| |
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 10:22:18AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 07:43 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 15:11 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > We should probably "backport" that simplification to ppc32... > > > > Yeah.... I'm increasingly tempted to merge ppc32/ppc64 into one arch > > like mips/parisc/s390. Or would that get vetoed on the basis that we > > don't have all that horrid non-OF platform support in ppc64 yet, and > > we're still kidding ourselves that all those embedded vendors will > > either not notice ppc64 or will use OF? > > Oh well... i've though about it too, and decided that I was not ready to > try it. For one, the problem you mention, with the pile of embedded > junk. I made the design decision to define an OF client interface as the > standard & mandatory entry mecanism to the ppc64 kernel (except legacy > iSeries of course, but I don't want that to multiply). That or the > kexec-like entrypoint passing a flattened device-tree in. > > Also, there are other significant differences in other areas. At this > point, I think the differences are bigger than the common code. > > What would be interesting would be to proceed incrementally, having a > directory somewhere to put the "common" ppc/ppc64 code, and slowly > moving things there.
It may be too complicated, but what about letting the commong code in ppc, and moving the ppc32 code into ppc32 ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |