Re: PowerPC BOF at Ottawa Linux Symposium July 19

[Adrian Cox <apc@agelectronics.co.uk>]

Dan Malek wrote:

> As a workstation/server BOF, I don't know how much interest exists to
> discuss this.  The easy answer is a set of orthogonal directory trees,
> but I think the highest priority should be on maintaining a set of
> common files.  Having experienced splitting some processor dependent
> files, I would still take the #ifdefs over tracking similar changes
> across multiple files.

I'd go with that some of the way, but I think MMU_init() in mm/init.c
goes a bit too far. It feels like every time I port my patches to a new
release kernel somebody has added extra boards and I have to sort switch
statements out by hand.

As an example, looking at 2.2 and 2.3, the actions performed by
xxx_find_end_of_memory() haven't changed very much. There probably
wouldn't be much problem introducing a ppc_md.find_end_of_memory call(),
and patches to add new machines would apply much cleaner.

I don't think the world is ready for my dream of eliminating _machine
completely, but if there's any interest I can attempt a test refactoring
of mm/init.c. This needn't be an all at once change; the idiom I'm
thinking of goes something like:
	if (ppc_md.do_whatever())
		ppc_md.do_whatever();
	else {
#ifndef CONFIG_8xx
	switch(_machine)
	...
#else
	8xx_do_whatever();
#endif
	}

- Adrian Cox, AG Electronics

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/