From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao09.cox.net (fed1rmmtao09.cox.net [68.230.241.30]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F59A67A5C for ; Fri, 21 Jan 2005 04:55:40 +1100 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:55:38 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: Paul Mackerras Message-ID: <20050120175537.GB32020@smtp.west.cox.net> 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> <16878.11077.556326.769738@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <16878.11077.556326.769738@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev list , Linus Torvalds , David Woodhouse , Linux Kernel list , "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: , On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 08:41:25PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote: > 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 *shurg* It really is a great idea, but I think it will just move the ire from (serial infos, IRQ table, ?) being in platforms/fooboard.[ch] to platforms/fooboard.h or platforms/fooboard_bootinfos.h So lets just hope ppc64 keeps getting ignored :) -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/