* FW: Code Clean-Up
@ 2004-04-26 18:50 Andrew Williams
2004-04-26 21:22 ` Tom Rini
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Williams @ 2004-04-26 18:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded
Re-send due to outlook HTML formatting issues...
-----Original Message-----
Sent: April 26, 2004 10:52 AM
To: 'linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org'
Subject: Code Clean-Up
What's the current view/policy on code cleanup?
Eg. immap_8260.h vs 8xx_immap.h
Furthermore each unit that accesses the immap, has to conditionaly select
the target platform header file.
I'm proposing a single immap.h file, that conditionaly selects either
immap_8260.h, or 8xx_immap.h (possibly renamed to immap_8xx.h).
Do people want to see this type of restructure/patch?
Andrew
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: FW: Code Clean-Up
2004-04-26 18:50 FW: Code Clean-Up Andrew Williams
@ 2004-04-26 21:22 ` Tom Rini
2004-04-26 21:48 ` Andrew Williams
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2004-04-26 21:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Williams; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 02:50:24PM -0400, Andrew Williams wrote:
> What's the current view/policy on code cleanup?
> Eg. immap_8260.h vs 8xx_immap.h
>
> Furthermore each unit that accesses the immap, has to conditionaly select
> the target platform header file.
>
> I'm proposing a single immap.h file, that conditionaly selects either
> immap_8260.h, or 8xx_immap.h (possibly renamed to immap_8xx.h).
>
> Do people want to see this type of restructure/patch?
Do you have code which works on both 82xx (or looking at 'newer' code in
2.4, soon to be in 2.6, 'cpm2' which is 82xx/85xx) and 8xx ?
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* RE: FW: Code Clean-Up
@ 2004-04-26 21:48 ` Andrew Williams
2004-04-26 22:24 ` Tom Rini
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Williams @ 2004-04-26 21:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Rini; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
No I have no specific code segment in mind.
(perhaps kernel/time.c?)
I was actually looking forward to 8260 vs 8270
which have very similar immaps. Do we want to clutter
the 8260_immap with conditional compiles specific to the
8280 series (70/75/80), or create a new immap_8270.h.
I'm just curious as to what the "consensus" is surrounding
this type of change. No sense posting patches that don't
fit others views of the architecture.
Andrew
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: FW: Code Clean-Up
2004-04-26 21:48 ` Andrew Williams
@ 2004-04-26 22:24 ` Tom Rini
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tom Rini @ 2004-04-26 22:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Williams; +Cc: linuxppc-embedded
On Mon, Apr 26, 2004 at 05:48:10PM -0400, Andrew Williams wrote:
>
> No I have no specific code segment in mind.
> (perhaps kernel/time.c?)
>
> I was actually looking forward to 8260 vs 8270
> which have very similar immaps. Do we want to clutter
> the 8260_immap with conditional compiles specific to the
> 8280 series (70/75/80), or create a new immap_8270.h.
The problem you're thinking of has been addressed with the 'cpm2'
rename, as 8260, 8270, etc, etc (82xx) and 85xx are all quite similar.
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-04-26 22:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-04-26 18:50 FW: Code Clean-Up Andrew Williams
2004-04-26 21:22 ` Tom Rini
2004-04-26 21:48 ` Andrew Williams
2004-04-26 22:24 ` Tom Rini
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).