linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: CVS Update@-mips.org: linux

To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Subject: Re: CVS Update@-mips.org: linux
From: Keith M Wesolowski <wesolows@foobazco.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:20:02 -0700
Cc: "Kevin D. Kissell" <kevink@mips.com>, ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1030721172805.13489C-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <02a701c34f81$4f32ca50$10eca8c0@grendel> <Pine.GSO.3.96.1030721172805.13489C-100000@delta.ds2.pg.gda.pl>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 05:50:08PM +0200, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:

>  Well, duplication is certainly undesireable, but is it the result of
> separate arch/mips and arch/mips64 trees or is it a side effect only? 
> These separate trees have an advantage of a clear distinction between
> these architectures.  And arch/sparc vs arch/sparc64 were the first case
> of such a split and they seem to feel quite well. 

sparc32 and sparc64 processors and systems are significantly
different.  For example, the SRMMU present in v8 CPUs is 100% replaced
with a totally different MMU (indeed, totally different instructions,
access methods, etc) in v9.  Accordingly there is very little code in
common between the two ports, and most of that is in device handling;
code that is in drivers/sbus and thus shared anyway.

Something that made sense for sparc might not make sense for mips.

-- 
Keith M Wesolowski <wesolows@foobazco.org> http://foobazco.org/~wesolows
------(( Project Foobazco Coordinator and Network Administrator ))------
        "May Buddha bless all stubborn people!"
                                -- Uliassutai Karakorum Blake

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