Re: 2.6.25-mm1

[Jordan Crouse <jordan.crouse@amd.com>]

On 19/04/08 13:50 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:38:33 -0700
> Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:25:44 -0400 Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:29:25 -0700
> > > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:10:24 -0400 Joseph Fannin <jfannin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 01:47:57AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> [...]
> > > > 
> > > > which we probably just shouldn't do this at all unless we're running on the
> > > > OLPC hardware.  But we need to do this to find out if we're running on the OLPC
> > > > hardware!  Perhaps the warning should just be removed.
> > > 
> > > Hm.  We could either protect that code with an:
> > > 
> > > if (!is_geode())
> > >   return;
> > > 
> > > Or I could add the OpenFirmware patches which would allow us to get
> > > rid of this code, and instead check for the existence of OFW using
> > > that.
> > > 
> > > The former is quick and easy; the latter is (imo) nicer, so long as
> > > people don't have problems w/ the OFW code.  :)
> > > 
> > 
> > Do both ;)
> > 
> > The quick-n-easy version sounds suitable for now.
> 
> Heh, I already had sent the nicer version.  If people have some fundamental
> problem w/ it, I can send the quick-n-easy version.

I prefer the nicer version.  It is not a good policy IMHO to wrap OLPC
specfic code with is_geode() and friends.  Even by Geode standards, we've
abused the code greatly for the benefit of the Geode, and few of those
abuses would translate very well even to the general Geode community.  I 
would prefer that we use the is_olpc() and #ifdef wrappers to ensure
that the code that is exclusively OLPC stays exclusively OLPC.

Thanks,
Jordan

-- 
Jordan Crouse
Systems Software Development Engineer 
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.