On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:02:00PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> This is the thrid step in the unification.
> This time it includes:
>
> - unification of sparc{,64}/prom/
> - unification of arch Makefiles
> - unification of sparc{,64}/kernel
Having done the unification of kernel/ I have started
wondering if this is the right approach.
Initially I did a diff of all the identical named
files in sparc/kernel/, sparc64/kernel/ and noone
showed up as easy unification targets.
Maybe I did not look close enough - I only judged on the diffstat output.
Would it make more sense to use two directories:
kernel32/
kernel64/
And accept that 32 and 64 bit do not share code?
We would anyway continue to have kernel/
as the build system require this - and here we could
have the shared files as linking order permits.
Same thinking goes with lib/ and boot/ which is the main reason
I did not unify them yet.
Let me know what you think.
I will redo my patches as needed should we go for the
kernel32/ kernel64/ model.
Patches 1 and 2 can be applied anyway as I do not
see a reason for a prom32 / prom64 split.
Sam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
