![]() | |||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wednesday 16 April 2008, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Michal Simek writes: > > > I think so. Sharing code among archs looks nice and this way is definitely > > right. But starting with communication with PowerPC guys that this code I want > > to use in case that this code is not in vanilla. This is not good start for > > doing this. > > I have a commit queued up that moves lmb.c into the top-level lib > directory so other architectures can use it easily. Dave Miller > wanted this so he could use it for sparc64. That will go into Linus' > tree when the merge window opens and will be in 2.6.26. So I don't > see any reason why microblaze couldn't use the LMB stuff. > Right, fair enough. I was mostly objecting to the idea of creating another copy of the lmb code when bootmem should be sufficient for what microblaze needs. Using the code from lib/lmb.c sounds fair enough when it's already there. One more reason for the microblaze kernel to base on top of linux-next instead of mainline. Arnd <>< -- 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/ | ||||||||||
| Last update: 2008-04-16 09:51 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||