On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 22:56 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 11 July 2007, Josh Boyer wrote: > > +#elif defined(CONFIG_40x) > > +/* 40x-style software loaded TLB */ > > +# include <asm/mmu-4xx.h> > > #elif defined(CONFIG_44x) > > /* 44x-style software loaded TLB */ > > # include <asm/mmu-44x.h> > > If you call it mmu-4xx, shouldn't it be used > for 44x as well? I would think this either > should be
No. I was following the established convention that's been there for years. Which sucks I suppose for people not familiar with 40x/44x. That would be a lot of stuff to change though... e.g.: arch/powerpc/platforms/4xx -> arch/powerpc/platforms/40x arch/powerpc/kernel/head_4xx.S -> arch/powerpc/platforms/head_40x.S etc. I'd need a git tree to do that cleanly. I've been toying with creating one for powerpc4xx anyway so I might do that. > > > +#elif defined(CONFIG_4xx) > > +/* 40x-style software loaded TLB */ > > +# include <asm/mmu-4xx.h> > > -#elif defined(CONFIG_44x) > > -/* 44x-style software loaded TLB */ > > -# include <asm/mmu-44x.h> > > or > > > +#elif defined(CONFIG_40x) > > +/* 40x-style software loaded TLB */ > > +# include <asm/mmu-40x.h> > > #elif defined(CONFIG_44x) > > /* 44x-style software loaded TLB */ > > # include <asm/mmu-44x.h> I'll probably change it to this. Will look a bit odd, given that C file is arch/powerpc/mm/4xx_mmu.c. > Is it actually feasible to get to a point where > you can build a kernel that boots on both > 40x and 44x, or is it just too different? The MMUs are entirely different. 40x has real-mode and is 32-bit. 44x is always virtual and is 36-bit. josh _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
