linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: CVS Update@-mips.org: linux

To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: CVS Update@-mips.org: linux
From: Jun Sun <jsun@mvista.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:33:40 -0700
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, Linux/MIPS Development <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>, jsun@mvista.com
In-reply-to: <20030613143049.GA27401@linux-mips.org>; from ralf@linux-mips.org on Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:30:49PM +0200
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <20030613135835Z8225250-1272+2544@linux-mips.org> <Pine.GSO.4.21.0306131617210.13821-100000@vervain.sonytel.be> <20030613143049.GA27401@linux-mips.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:30:49PM +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2003 at 04:19:46PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 
> > Is this really a good idea? You moved board-specific code (`everything 
> > related
> > to one board in a single dir') into one directory? So for a new port, you 
> > now
> > have to add a arch/mips/<board>/ directory, and add files to arch/mips/pci/.
> > 
> > I agree that extracting common parts and cleaning up the code is a good 
> > idea,
> > though.
> 
> It's just toooo much to do in one step, expect forther moving of code
> to get everything to it's final place.  The amount of code that was
> being duplicated was just insane and trying to sort boards by chipset
> was part of the evil.  So MIPS's boards may come with one of several
> PCI chipsets and the Lasat systems may have either a NEC Nile4 or a
> Galileo 64120 chipset.  Result?  Each was duplicating the code to support
> both chipsets into it's arch/mips/foo/ code.  Similar things with code
> to support various firmware such as PMON etc.
> 
> Anyway, suggestions welcome,
>

Ralf and I chatted a little before the change.  I think this _may_ be
a good thing.  It does not hurt to give it whirl first.

I was trying to promote chipset based grouping, like gt64120/ or ddb5xxx/, 
but apparently not everybody likes that.  People are still going with 
company or machine based grouping, which makes chipset code sharing impossible.

I also realize that chipset based grouping (and sharing) requires more
design and synchronization between developers, and thus probably harder
to do.  So in that sense, arch/mips/pci, as a less restrictive mechnism
for sharing, might work better.

So I like to view arch/mips/pci as some PCI library routines for 
chipsets instead of another place for board-specific code to live.

Jun


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>