2017-11-08 16:45 GMT+08:00 Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>: > On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Greentime Hu <green...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> +#ifndef __NDS32_PROCFNS_H__ >> +#define __NDS32_PROCFNS_H__ >> + >> +#define CPU_NAME n13 >> + >> +#ifdef __KERNEL__ >> + >> +#ifdef __STDC__ >> +#define ____cpu_fn(name,fn) name##fn >> +#else >> +#define ____cpu_fn(name,fn) name/**/fn >> +#endif >> +#define __cpu_fn(name,fn) ____cpu_fn(name,fn) >> + >> +#define cpu_proc_init __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _proc_init) >> +#define cpu_proc_fin __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _proc_fin) >> +#define cpu_do_idle __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _do_idle) >> +#define cpu_reset __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _reset) >> +#define cpu_switch_mm __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _switch_mm) > > I see you have copied this from ARM. Do you actually need the same complexity, > with the ability to build either optimal code for a particular CPU or > a multi-CPU > version? > > Most other architectures seem to have settled for doing just one of the two > models. How many CPU implementations to you expect to support that > differ in all of those functions? >
I think we can simplify the implementations because we may not have that many implementations. I will refine it in the next version patch.
