On 11/07/2013 02:15 PM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>
> That would involve repurposing/generalizing a bit more of the existing
> x86-only code than I did the first time around, but if you (as x86
> maintainers) are happy with that, I'm all for it.
>
> I do have a couple of questions then
> - the module aliases host tool has no arch specific dependencies at
> all except having x86cpu as one of the entries: would you mind
> dropping the x86 prefix there? Or rather add dependencies on $ARCH?
> (If we drop it there, we basically end up with 'cpu:' everywhere)
I think it makes sense to indicate what kind of CPU the string refers
to, as the top-level indicator of what is going on. This might be
possible to macroize the generation of this prefix, though.
> - in the vendor/family/model case, it may be preferable to drop these
> fields entirely from certain modules' aliases if they match on 'any'
> (provided that the module tools permit this) rather than add
> architecture, variant, revision, etc fields for all architectures if
> they can only ever match on one
I think that can be CPU dependent.
> - some of the X86_ macros would probable be redefined in terms of the
> generic macros rather than the other way around, which would result in
> some changes under arch/x86 as well, is that acceptable for you?
If you are talking about X86_FEATURE_* then almost certainly no,
although I'm willing to listen to what you have in mind.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
