lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Re: Move of input drivers, some word needed from you
   Date: 	Mon, 21 Aug 2000 14:01:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>

I would not be unhappy to have separate drivers for different chipsets,
and even if you want to have the same driver for a 16450 and a 16550 (they
_are_ quite close, after all), it's not clear that it makes sense to do
the same thing for the multiport things etc.

Well, the amount of code which changes between 16450 and 16550 is less
than 50 lines of code (out of 5700).

The amount of code which is multiport specific is about 100 lines of
source (again, out of 5700 --- or about 2% of the code). The reason why
we have the #ifdef's is because there are some inline functions which
get included a second time when we compile in the multiport code, so it
makes a pretty significant difference to the object size.

Of course, on modern architectures it's not clear the inline functions
are worth it, so I'll likely make that go away post 2.4.

Actually the largest chunk of code in there is the PCI/ISA PNP support
--- over 1500 LOC. But if you think PCI is the "privileged bus",
separating it out doesn't necessarily make that much sense.

- Ted

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:37    [W:0.027 / U:1.352 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site