Benjamin Herrenschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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...
Celleb-native needs own machine definition and setup code due to HW and FW deferences between CellBlade and Celleb. Of course, because Celleb-native and Celleb-Beat use some codes commonly, we need a place to put Celleb common codes. But I don't know your idea is better or not. Best regards, Kou Ishizaki _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
