Justin Carlson wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, you wrote:
> > > If I'm understanding your idea correctly, this table would require you to
> > > always compile in all the mmu routines for all processors, just to fill
> > > in the
> > > table entries. Doesn't seem like a particularly good idea to me, even if
> > > we
> > > could use generic mips32 routines for most parts.
> > >
> > Each table entry can be surrounded by something like #if
> > defined(CONFIG_CPU_RM7000) and #endif. That should take care of the
> > problem.
> Not if you want to have constant-defined offsets into the table. Which is
> about the only reason to use a table for this...Either:
No, I am thinking to have constant-defined offset into the table. Instead, I
am thinking to do a linear search of the table and find a matching entry based
on the PRID.
Without table, I can see two alternatives, 1) switch/case statement to fill in
the data by statements (which is the current case) or 2) for each CPU
(protected by #ifdef CONFIG_) we define a mips_cpu struct.
I guess I just like table better than switch/case statements. Table seems
cleaner to me.
I like table over option 2) because it is possible to build a kernel that
supports multiple CPUs.
> 1) You've got multiple entries in the table for different cpus, which you're
> indexing by some hash of PRID fields. This requires a full table. (Or a
> ugly hash function that's adaptive depending on which which cpu support is
> compiled in)
> 2) You've got a single entry table.
In practice most tables probably only have single entry (due to the config),
but I guess that is OK.