On Friday 07 September 2007 02:38:07 am Jes Sorensen wrote: > The reason why I suggested a machvec is to avoid cluttering up the > generic function with something like this. In addition I only see two > machvec's that may potentially get copied, the dig one and the hpzx1 > one. > > If we start adding clutter to the generic functions we will end up with > a 2-dimensional mesh of things where some is handled machvec style and > then we have local variations within the machvecs. I suspect the Unisys > and HP machines will end up having special machvecs for these machines > anyway. I'm not aware of a current or planned HP machine where ptc.g will not work. Sometimes ptc.g doesn't work because of defects in early processor or chipset prototypes, but I consider that a bring-up issue that is not significant enough to warrant additional permanent code in the kernel. So I don't think we should have a special machvec for HP machines. Bjorn - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
|