Re: RFC: [2.6 patch] better i386 CPU selection

Adrian Bunk
2003-09-11T06:22:53Z

On Tue, Sep 09, 2003 at 11:11:21AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> In message <20030908142920.GB28062@fs.tum.de> you write:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 10:46:30AM +1000, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > > In message <20030907112813.GQ14436@fs.tum.de> you write:
> > > > - @Rusty:
> > > > what's your opinion on making MODULE_PROC_FAMILY in
> > > > include/asm-i386/module.h some kind of bitmask?
> > >
> > > The current one is readable, which is good, and Linus asked for it,
> > > which makes it kinda moot. And really, if you compile a module with
> > > M686 and insert it in a kernel with M586, *WHATEVER* scheme you we use
> > > for CPU seleciton, I want the poor user to have to use "modprobe -f".
> >
> > I agree, my thoughts go in the direction
> >
> > bit 0 CPU_386
> > bit 1 CPU_486
> > bit 2 CPU_586
>
> We had a bitmask, which Linus said to replace with a string. We have
> 21 architectures, and a string works well in practice. We could have
> a bitmask *and* a string, but why the complexity?
>...

My intention is that the user (= person compiling the kernel) selects
all CPUs he wants to support and to move the answer to questions like
"Which CPU type should I choose to support both an AMD Athlon and a
Pentium 4?" into the Kconfig/Makefile where it's automatically selected.

> Hope that clarifies,
> Rusty.

cu
Adrian

--

"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed