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 just > 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 really > 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. Jun
