On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 20:15 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > It seems platforms/cell should have the shared and/or generic code, > and the other > > stuff moved into a new platform directory, but is it worth the > effort? > > There is very little code in platforms/cell that can not be generic, > so I think > it's not worth splitting it. The only IBM blade specific files are > cbe_cpufreq_pmi.c and parts of setup.c and pervasive.c. Everything > else could > be shared by about any generic implementation without a hypervisor.
Another option is to have: platforms/celleb -> platforms/beat and withing platforms/cell, rename blade specific files to something (can't find what, works on CAB too) and add celleb "bare metal" files. A platform directly doesn't have to deal with one platform. For example, platforms/44x contains a lot of board support. Now, one question is how far can we merge celleb support with the common blade/CAB code... Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
