Florian Lohoff wrote: > On Sun, Mar 25, 2001 at 09:01:52PM -0600, Joe deBlaquiere wrote: > >> Just some unsorted random ideas: >> >> 1. Would it be possible to lump some of the different MIPS variants >> together more closely? In my dream world I could build one kernel that >> would boot on every mips architecture. This way the work can be more >> general. As it stands now, if you want Tx39 or Vr41 variants you're >> working out of a different tree. With the number of SoC core products >> coming out at present, this predicament is only likely to get more >> serious. I know at one point in time you could boot a single ARM kernel on >> several different systems and it would adapt it's processor specifics at >> runtime. Such a design might help to bring the MIPS world together a bit. > > > There is at least a problem with endianess - I dont think there can be > a little and big endian kernel coexist in the same object or at least > not with major rework. > Well, yes that would be a problem, but at least within endianess, there's no reason why the processor specific stuff can't be abstracted and attached at runtime. > Why would you suggest having vr41 and TX39 in a seperat tree ? I had a > look in the linux-vr tree and i dont like some of their #ifdef spaghetti > stuff so i am currently working on TX39 stuff on top of the oss tree > which could be made cleanly. (Dont integrate all TX39 archs into one > subarch *grrr*) > It's kinda ugly, but some of that is that the original architecture didn't scale to having many different target platforms. I think a little sane multi-platform infrastructure would make things cleaner and better in the future. > Flo -- Joe deBlaquiere Red Hat, Inc. 307 Wynn Drive Huntsville AL, 35805 voice : (256)-704-9200 fax : (256)-837-3839
