From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <16878.11077.556326.769738@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:41:25 +1100 From: Paul Mackerras To: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <1106120622.10851.42.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> References: <200501082324.j08NOIva030415@hera.kernel.org> <20050109151353.GA9508@suse.de> <1105956993.26551.327.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> <1106107876.4534.163.camel@gaston> <1106120622.10851.42.camel@baythorne.infradead.org> Cc: Linux Kernel list , linuxppc-dev list , Linus Torvalds , "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH] raid6: altivec support List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , David Woodhouse writes: > 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? I'm going to insist that every new ppc64 platform supplies a device tree. They don't have to have OF but they do need to have the booter or wrapper supply a flattened device tree (which is just a few kB of binary data as far as the booter/wrapper is concerned). It doesn't have to include all the As for merging ppc32 and ppc64, I think it would end up an awful ifdef mess, but if you can see a clean way to do it, send me a patch. :) Paul.