On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 11:28:20PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> 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'm planning to redo this patchset the coming weekend so catch
up with sparc-next.
I may put a bit more effort into the sparc32 Makefile to clean it
up a bit before the unification if time permits.
Until then I would like to know if there is any strong desire
to keep one kernel/ or should we go for kernel32, kernel64 (+ kernel/) two?
I like to see the unifications and I see benefits in having
all related files in the same dir - but I'm suprised that sparc32
and sparc64 differ that much (textual at least). There seems to
be much more shared code in the x86 case for example.
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
