Re: 64-bit support..what happened?

[David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>]

acurtis@onz.com said:
>  As you mentioned, although my architecture has a 64-bit bus, the only
> way to perform a 64-bit bus access is through the floating point
> processor. Do you see any reason why I couldn't just perform 2 32-bit
> operations? 

Er, I suppose not. Defeats the whole point of interleaving, but I don't see 
a reason why it shouldn't _work_, offhand, hardware permitting.

> I will take physmap.c as an example and make our own version. However
> good sample code would include the proper headers if they reference
> conditional defines. (slight jab...sorry) 

You're right. It looks like the code snippet in physmap.c is in fact a 
_bad_ example and has been copied into two new map files.

> I believe that there are 3 files under map that include the conditional
> compile and none of them include the proper header file. Perhaps this 
> just indicates that the conditional should be moved to another file or
> change to use the autoconfig defines? 

I'm inclined to suggest that it should be removed from all three offending
map files and a new example for 64-bit operation be added; physmap64.c. And
you should only be able to enable physmap64.c in the config if you've
enabled 64-bit operation -- so it shouldn't need any conditionals at all.

Does that sound sane?

--
dwmw2