From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/20] early_res: seperate common memmap func from e820.c to fw_memmap.c Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2010 08:04:05 +1100 Message-ID: <1269291846.8599.81.camel@pasglop> References: <4BA6EA62.1030603@kernel.org> <20100321.210023.209981130.davem@davemloft.net> <4BA6F1F6.3070102@kernel.org> <20100321.213350.176660494.davem@davemloft.net> <20100322092809.GA20607@elte.hu> <20100322113026.GA11526@brick.ozlabs.ibm.com> <20100322130530.GC12475@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:53987 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751541Ab0CVVEd (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:04:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100322130530.GC12475@elte.hu> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Paul Mackerras , David Miller , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , yinghai@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org, ebiederm@xmission.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2010-03-22 at 14:05 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Paul Mackerras wrote: > > > And I don't see the point of moving the x86 e820 stuff into the kernel > > directory. [...] > > I dont see the point of that either - that is a mistake. e820 is an x86 bios > call and we shouldnt name a generic mechanism after that. e820 is absolutely > messy and has no place anywhere beyond x86. > > The main technical argument i see is 'early_res versus LMB'. Even there i'd > prefer LMB from a technical quality POV. Then we have no argument. The point is, we object to that fw_memmap/e820 stuff taking over for non-x86 architectures. We aren't saying that x86 -must- move to LMB, but if the wish is to have a common implementation in generic code accross all archs, -then- we object to it being e820. Ben.