linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: calculate VMALLOC_END by probing in mdesc->map_io()
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 14:34:08 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110123143408.GA30094@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1101230918340.8580@xanadu.home>

On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 09:21:19AM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Jan 2011, Eric Miao wrote:
> 
> > > I'd instead suggest adding vmalloc_end to the machine description
> > > record.
> > >
> > 
> > And since all boards sharing a same machine_class is going to use
> > the same value, I'd rather we first introduce struct machine_class
> > like in the patch I posted months ago?
> 
> Another way to look at it is to move vmalloc_end and the like into each 
> machine record now, and look at the machine class changes afterwards 
> with a better view of all that might be consolidated at that point.

The machine class stuff is only worthwhile if it results in a net
reduction in complexity.  I don't remember whether the previous set
of patches for this showed any platforms being converted - searching
the list archives seems to suggest not.

While the simpler platforms seem to have (eg) their .map_io in a class
pointing at the same function, more complex platforms tend to have it
pointing at board-level functions.  Same goes for the .init_irq
function.

I don't think there's a clear-cut case where this approach will result
in a net reduction of complexity.  I suspect it might actually end up
making things more complicated.

What I'm basically saying is that I'd like to see the effect of having
existing board stuff converted over to show whether this is worthwhile
or not.

  reply	other threads:[~2011-01-23 14:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-01-22 22:56 [PATCH 1/2] ARM: calculate VMALLOC_END by probing in mdesc->map_io() Eric Miao
2011-01-22 22:56 ` [PATCH 2/2] ARM: remove now useless vmalloc.h Eric Miao
2011-01-22 23:15 ` [PATCH 1/2] ARM: calculate VMALLOC_END by probing in mdesc->map_io() Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-01-23  4:59   ` Eric Miao
2011-01-23  5:30     ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-01-23  7:15       ` [PATCH 1/2] ARM: calculate VMALLOC_END by probing inmdesc->map_io() Santosh Shilimkar
2011-01-23 14:17         ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-01-23 14:27           ` Santosh Shilimkar
2011-01-23  9:40     ` [PATCH 1/2] ARM: calculate VMALLOC_END by probing in mdesc->map_io() Russell King - ARM Linux
2011-01-23 14:21     ` Nicolas Pitre
2011-01-23 14:34       ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2011-01-23 23:05         ` Eric Miao

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20110123143408.GA30094@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
    --to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).