From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: Time for cell code reshuffle? From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Arnd Bergmann In-Reply-To: <200712212015.45088.arnd@arndb.de> References: <200712211522.03841.arnd@arndb.de> <476BF67C.2030405@am.sony.com> <200712212015.45088.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:00:14 +1100 Message-Id: <1198357215.6686.8.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Paul Mackerras , cbe-oss-dev@ozlabs.org, Jeremy Kerr Reply-To: benh@kernel.crashing.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 20:15 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > It seems platforms/cell should have the shared and/or generic code, > and the other > > stuff moved into a new platform directory, but is it worth the > effort? > > There is very little code in platforms/cell that can not be generic, > so I think > it's not worth splitting it. The only IBM blade specific files are > cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c and parts of setup.c and pervasive.c. Everything > else could > be shared by about any generic implementation without a hypervisor. Another option is to have: platforms/celleb -> platforms/beat and withing platforms/cell, rename blade specific files to something (can't find what, works on CAB too) and add celleb "bare metal" files. A platform directly doesn't have to deal with one platform. For example, platforms/44x contains a lot of board support. Now, one question is how far can we merge celleb support with the common blade/CAB code... Cheers, Ben.