[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: merge of m68knommu and m68k arch branches?
Hi Sam,

On 18/02/11 17:44, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:07:25AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote:
>> Hi All,
>> I would like to put up for discussion a merge of the m68knommu and
>> m68k arch branches.
>> Attached is a script and patch that does a kind of brute force
>> simplistic merge of the directories and files. (Thanks to Stephen King
>> <> for the initial version of this script, and to
>> Sam Ravnborg for the m68k includes merge script this was based on).
>> Nothing outside of the arch/m68k and arch/m68knommu directories is
>> touched, and in the end there is no more arch/m68knommu. To apply you
>> simply run the script from the top of a current kernel git tree (I used
>> 2.6.38-rc5 for testing) and then apply the patch.
> The initial version of said script was created by Arnd IIRC.

Apologies to Arnd then :-)

>> Thoughts?
> When we merged x86, sh and sparc in the past this has in all
> cases helped sharing coe between the 32 and 64 bit variants.
> There has in all cases been some code-chrunch in the beginning,
> but the result has been good.
> What as often caused some troubles has been how to configure
> the individual architectures.
> We have for eaxample:
> make ARCH=x86, make ARCH=i386, make ARCH=x86_64 today.
> Likewise for sparc we have:
> make ARCH=sparc, make ARCH=sparc32, make ARCH=sparc64
> So you need to consider how to deal with this for m68k.
> Maybe MMU is just an option so you only have ARCH=m68k in the end?

That is what I have currently done. CONFIG_MMU is selectable,
and there is no longer a separate ARCH=m68knommu, only ARCH=m68k.
I am fine with that, but I am interested in what opinion others
have on this.

> You do not touch upon the maintenance of the merged trees.
> Today there is different maintainers for the two archs.
> To have a transparent flow the better solution is likely that
> all m68k* patches go via one of your trees so we do not
> have two trees that deal with m68k upstream.

Yeah, I had much thought to this yet.

> I assume we will sort it all out naturally and I hope that
> we soon will have m68k and m68knommu merged!

That would be my take on it ;-)
I am happy to charge ahead and let the maintenance/flow work
itself out.


Greg Ungerer -- Principal Engineer EMAIL:
SnapGear Group, McAfee PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888
8 Gardner Close FAX: +61 7 3217 5323
Milton, QLD, 4064, Australia WEB:

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-18 13:07    [W:0.065 / U:1.628 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site