On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 18:54 +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote: > Hi Michael, > > > > void early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(unsigned long start, > > > unsigned long end); > > > > arch_early_init_dt_setup_initrd() makes more sense to me, but .. > > <foo>_arch has been the general convention for arch-specific hooks in > drivers/of/.
Yuck, doh, guess I should have read those patches before they went in :)
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD
> > > +void __init early_init_dt_setup_initrd_arch(unsigned long start,
> > > + unsigned long end)
> > > +{
> > > + initrd_start = (unsigned long)__va(start);
> > > + initrd_end = (unsigned long)__va(end);
> > > + initrd_below_start_ok = 1;
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> >
> > Given you have two identical implementations why not make that the
> > default and make it weak, and let ARM override it.
>
> Yeah, that would be good too; just been avoiding weak as a potential source
> of
> magic voodoo complexity. Grant - up to you on this one.
Yeah, depends on what toolchains you're supporting, modern ones should
be OK but it can be troublesome.
cheers
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
