From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) id f35L3eP06602 for linux-mips-outgoing; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:03:40 -0700 Received: from mail.foobazco.org (snowman.foobazco.org [198.144.194.230]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f35L3eM06598 for ; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:03:40 -0700 Received: by mail.foobazco.org (Postfix, from userid 1014) id 8B875109DD; Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:03:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 14:03:39 -0700 From: Keith M Wesolowski To: Jun Sun Cc: linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: RFC: Cleanup/detection patch Message-ID: <20010405140338.A1508@foobazco.org> References: <20010401235212.B9737@foobazco.org> <3ACA8A3B.8BBABB11@mvista.com> <20010403203055.A17365@foobazco.org> <3ACB5FD8.6B166BA6@mvista.com> <20010405004618.A30899@foobazco.org> <3ACCD599.1765FCB2@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3ACCD599.1765FCB2@mvista.com>; from jsun@mvista.com on Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:29:13PM -0700 Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Thu, Apr 05, 2001 at 01:29:13PM -0700, Jun Sun wrote: > I don't like bc_ops idea. Usually the external cache capability is still > integral part of the CPU. How can it be both an integral part of the CPU and board-specific? Either it's under the direct control of the cpu or it's not. If it is, that's cpu-specific and handled by the regular cacheops. If it's not, that's board-specific and is called from a hook into something which the machine detection has set up. > I favor the idea where the cache takes care of external cache dynamically, > based on some parameters set up by board detection routine. So we end up filling the cache routines with tests for board-specific stuff? No way. The cache routines should be dependent ONLY on the CPU - two completely different boards with radically different designs should be able to use the exact same foo-cache.c if they have the same CPU. If it's board-specific we can put generic hooks in but testing for various boards in the cacheops is too expensive and too ugly. -- Keith M Wesolowski http://foobazco.org/~wesolows ------(( Project Foobazco Coordinator and Network Administrator ))------ "I should have crushed his marketing-addled skull with a fucking bat."