From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from baythorne.infradead.org (baythorne.infradead.org [81.187.2.161]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84319681BE for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:12:52 +1100 (EST) From: David Woodhouse To: Paul Mackerras In-Reply-To: <17290.28508.336476.478948@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <1133016287.4044.65.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> <17290.28508.336476.478948@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:12:46 +0000 Message-Id: <1133172766.31573.14.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make ARCH=ppc build again with new syscall path List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 13:45 +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > Hmmm. If we need to do this then maybe we should just get rid of the > arch/ppc versions of the relevant files and make ARCH=ppc use the > versions from arch/powerpc. > > What do people think? Do we make ARCH=ppc use more and more stuff > from arch/powerpc, and delete the duplicates from arch/ppc, or do > people want to be conservative and keep arch/ppc largely unchanged? > (I would prefer the former, myself.) I also prefer the former, in general -- it makes it easier for people to port their platform from ppc to powerpc if we don't let the two diverge too much. There's also a third option, which _encourages_ people to port their platform without necessarily making it easier: just let arch/ppc break. I'm not sure I'd necessarily advocate that one _yet_ but maybe in the not-so-distant future. -- dwmw2