On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Ralf Baechle wrote: > > I agree the inclusion both R3k and R4k handlers at the same time even > > though any configuration predetermines which of the two is only going to > > be needed is a bit suboptimal indeed. > > I guess one of the goals was to slowly clean up the stuff that forces us > to have different kernels for R2000 and R4000 class TLBs. Well, we had a plan to support multiple systems with a "generic" kernel too; at least ones that have a compatible load address. Which would help distributions create their bootstrap disks for example. I have thought all of this got abandoned at one point, mostly due to the maintenance effort required to keep it going long-term. The Alpha port did it many years ago, but they have a compatible bootstrap environment and their number of system variations is limited, especially as compared to ours. Maciej
