On Wednesday 03 September 2008, Woodruff, Richard wrote: > Fixed translations do have some benefits. You can ensure that you > are using section or super section descriptors to cover large areas. > This does result in better TLB usage. Along with freeing up TLB > entries you also generally avoid TLB misses on IO calls which > touch a variety of internal spaces as part of the IRQ sequence. ... which is exactly why some linux/arch/... code makes sure ioremap() can return fixed mappings instead of always requiring dynamic ones. > Frankly I've never been convinced that a multi OMAP1/2/3 image makes much > sense apart forcing better code structure Which is actually a pretty big thing. Along with "structure", it helps avoid #define collisions ... and also ensures that test builds can cover increasing fractions of the code base, giving a big win for maintainability. Maintainability is a *big thing* ... without it, you ensure that lots of code will begin bitrotting long before it needs to. > and being kind of cool. Each > chip has very different performance targets and is really better built with > an optimized tool chain (ARMv5, ARMv6, ARMv7). Doing multi-boots with in > the same architecture family seems really good but across seems less so. True enough, but that decision can be in the hands of whoever builds a kernel. If you want to deploy an A8-optimized system, the kernel will be only one part of the equation. - Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
