On Jul 11, 2007, at 3:56 PM, 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 > >> +#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> > > 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?
I'm guessing its too different since 40x probably has a real mode and 44x doesnt. However, I agree we should go ahead and rename 4xx to 40x at this point in arch/powerpc. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
