From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from baythorne.infradead.org (baythorne.infradead.org [81.187.226.107]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385DB67A63 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:43:52 +1100 (EST) From: David Woodhouse To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <1106107876.4534.163.camel@gaston> References: <200501082324.j08NOIva030415@hera.kernel.org> <20050109151353.GA9508@suse.de> <1105956993.26551.327.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <1106107876.4534.163.camel@gaston> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 07:43:42 +0000 Message-Id: <1106120622.10851.42.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev list , Linus Torvalds , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux Kernel list Subject: Re: [PATCH] raid6: altivec support List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 15:11 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > We should probably "backport" that simplification to ppc32... Yeah.... I'm increasingly tempted to merge ppc32/ppc64 into one arch like mips/parisc/s390. Or would that get vetoed on the basis that we don't have all that horrid non-OF platform support in ppc64 yet, and we're still kidding ourselves that all those embedded vendors will either not notice ppc64 or will use OF? -- dwmw2