From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <367C0A9A.39575D8@jlc.net> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 15:20:43 -0500 From: Dan Malek MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Mark S. Mathews" CC: Corey Minyard , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org, Cort Dougan Subject: Re: Restructure of arch/ppc/kernel and include/asm-ppc, part 2 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Mark S. Mathews wrote: > Would it be possible to keep in mind that the MBX is _not_ the only.... There have been many changes placed into the baseline and many more to come that address these configuration issues. When I first did the MPC8xx port almost one year ago, I used the 860 MBX board for that work. I tried to keep processor and board modifications separate, but didn't always succeed. Now that I have ported Linux to several different versions of the 8xx and as many boards, I can say there is a better method soon to come. However, the flexibility of the 8xx will always guarantee there is something not done correctly to someone's taste. An issue I had with the 8xx port that still exists is the amount of kernel baggage that has to be carried along that is simply not needed. Some of it is thrown away as 'init' sections, but too much still hangs around with no use. Another souce of the conditional compilation for 8xx is due to its not prep/chrp or OF architecture. > Perhaps have separate config options for the 8xx processor and the board > design. I don't know what baseline you are using, but the latest ones have certainly addressed this. It should now be pretty clear what is processor specific and what is board specific (at least I though I submitted all of that ;-). -- Dan [[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]] [[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]] [[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]] [[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]