mbligh@aracnet.com said:
> Duplicating all the code sections into all the subarches is an
> impractical maintainance nightmare. Yet that's how it seems to be set
> up at the moment (kind of OK if you only have 1 subarch apart from
> generic, but not in general).
well, the way it works was modelled on the asm-arch to asm-generic setup (and
we have currently twenty of those).
But still, I agree that a default fallback is a better way of doing it.
> If you have a different suggestion for fixing subarch support, please
> outline it ....
Well, I think what Alan does in -ac6 is the correct approach (with
mach-default fallback, not mach-generic, which is really PC specific). The
only difference between Alan and John's patches (apart from mach-default) is
the _H _C split and the location of the header files.
I've no real objection to the _H _C split, other than it seems a bit
contorted. The intent I originally had was that all subarchs would have a
small setup.c file (copied and modified from mach-generic), so I didn't
envisage having a subarch which wanted to use the generic setup.c and a
different _H directory. Doing a _H _C split reduces simplicity.
As far as the location of _H. All I'm really fishing for is a better reason
than "because they're header files" basically because I believe interface
containment has value.
James
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 23 2002 - 22:00:40 EST