From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [Cbe-oss-dev] [PATCH 11/13] cell: split out board specific files From: Michael Ellerman To: Geoff Levand In-Reply-To: <445690F7.5050605@am.sony.com> References: <20060429232812.825714000@localhost.localdomain> <20060429233922.167124000@localhost.localdomain> <445690F7.5050605@am.sony.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-nY39FS7qB/bu6/mFRtjo" Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 10:13:28 +1000 Message-Id: <1146528809.27495.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Arnd Bergmann , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org Reply-To: michael@ellerman.id.au List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , --=-nY39FS7qB/bu6/mFRtjo Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 15:51 -0700, Geoff Levand wrote: > Segher, a problem with your suggestion is that our > makefiles don't have as rich a set of logical ops as the > config files. Its easy to express 'build A if B', but not > so easy to do 'build A if not C'. To make this work > cleanly I made PPC_CELL denote !SOME_HYPERVISOR_THING, > so I can have constructions like this in the makefile: >=20 > obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_CELL) +=3D ... Hi Geoff, I've been ignoring this discussion, but now that I read it I think this is all kinda backwards. PPC_CELL should not denote !SOME_HYPERVISOR, it should just mean "basic cell support", ie. PPC_CELL gets you platforms/cell built in. Then we can have SOME_HYPERVISOR which _adds_ support for that hypervisor. And PPC_CELL_BLADE which selects things which are actually specific to that hardware, like SPIDERNET etc. But SOME_HYPERVISOR should not remove support for running on bare metal, it should just give you the option of running on the hypervisor. Yes that may require testing things at runtime, that's what firmware_has_feature() is for. The goal should be that we have one kernel which can boot on all Cell implementations. In fact the ultimate goal is to have one kernel that can boot any platform under powerpc, that's a way off still, but we don't want to start going backwards. cheers --=20 Michael Ellerman IBM OzLabs wwweb: http://michael.ellerman.id.au phone: +61 2 6212 1183 (tie line 70 21183) We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - S.M.A.R.T Person --=-nY39FS7qB/bu6/mFRtjo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEVqQodSjSd0sB4dIRAtxEAJkBaKgtzuYNyel3Y/d6pa2aoj9KqACfVXo6 GYN82hBz+PqYmf62EOmeI3s= =uhPV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-nY39FS7qB/bu6/mFRtjo--