From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] raid6: altivec support
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:22:18 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1106176939.5294.39.camel@gaston> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1106120622.10851.42.camel@baythorne.infradead.org>
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 07:43 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 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?
Oh well... i've though about it too, and decided that I was not ready to
try it. For one, the problem you mention, with the pile of embedded
junk. I made the design decision to define an OF client interface as the
standard & mandatory entry mecanism to the ppc64 kernel (except legacy
iSeries of course, but I don't want that to multiply). That or the
kexec-like entrypoint passing a flattened device-tree in.
Also, there are other significant differences in other areas. At this
point, I think the differences are bigger than the common code.
What would be interesting would be to proceed incrementally, having a
directory somewhere to put the "common" ppc/ppc64 code, and slowly
moving things there.
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-01-19 23:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200501082324.j08NOIva030415@hera.kernel.org>
2005-01-09 15:13 ` [PATCH] raid6: altivec support Olaf Hering
2005-01-17 10:16 ` David Woodhouse
2005-01-17 14:58 ` Kumar Gala
2005-01-19 4:11 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-01-19 7:43 ` David Woodhouse
2005-01-19 9:41 ` Paul Mackerras
2005-01-20 17:55 ` Tom Rini
2005-01-19 14:45 ` Kumar Gala
2005-01-19 14:48 ` David Woodhouse
2005-01-19 14:54 ` Kumar Gala
2005-01-19 15:08 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2005-01-19 15:15 ` Kumar Gala
2005-01-19 15:27 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2005-01-19 23:25 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2005-01-20 7:40 ` [Lists-linux-kernel-news] " Jon Masters
2005-01-19 18:07 ` Jon Masters
2005-01-19 23:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2005-01-23 11:17 ` Sven Luther
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=1106176939.5294.39.camel@gaston \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.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