From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 00:57:36 -0500 From: Milton Miller To: paulus@samba.org, mgreer@mvista.com, Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] bootwrapper: arch/powerpc/boot code reorg Message-Id: <31154584656643c98694.1714636915.miltonm@bga.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed Aug 2 2006 01:15:05 AM CDT, Paul Mackerras wrote: > I wrote: > > > The ops structure seems like a reasonable concept, but I question > > whether we need to have platform_ops separate from fw_ops, since the > > firmware is essentially part of the implementation of the platform. > > Also I don't see why we need to do a double indirection to get to each > > ops function. > > Thinking about this a bit more, why do we need the indirect function > calls at all? Do we ever want to be able to choose (e.g.) one of > several possible console implementations at runtime? Don't we know at > compile time which one we will be using, and thus can't we use the > linker to make the necessary linkages? > Personally, I would like to consider a zImage that could be either an open firmware client or a kexec kernel. However, I'm not sure that requires the full ops set. I just did the seperate image to get the function I needed quickly. Also, were not some of the ops pre-existing? milton