[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Microblaze noMMU/MMU merge
    On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 09:45:47AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
    > I would like to say your opinion about putting together Microblaze MMU
    > arch to noMMU version.
    > In C code will be #ifdef CONFIG_MMU ... #endif or #ifndef.
    > Here is proposal for headers. The similar style is used in m68k but I
    > would like to have the same code
    > for both archs in main file.
    > #ifndef _ASM_MICROBLAZE_PAGE_H
    > #define _ASM_MICROBLAZE_PAGE_H
    > code for noMMU and MMU which is the same for both.
    > #ifdef __uClinux__
    > #include "page_no.h" -> noMMU specific
    > #else
    > #include "page_mm.h"-> MMU specific
    > #endif
    > #endif /* _ASM_MICROBLAZE_PAGE_H */
    There's really not that much code that you need to change in order to
    support nommu, as long as you designed your architecture port to be
    fairly compartmentalized. Take a look at some of the other architectures
    in-tree that support both in the same architecture backend. sh was the
    first to support a configurable CONFIG_MMU during the 2.5 days, but there
    are others now as well (though I don't know how actively the others are
    maintained -- nommu people tend to be even worse (!) than general
    embedded people at hanging around).

    In addition to sh, at least frv, m32r, and arm support a configurable
    CONFIG_MMU these days. xtensa seems to have just recently joined the
    club, too.

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-04-21 10:05    [W:0.022 / U:11.080 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site