Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:50:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:50:51 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:46866 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:50:48 -0400 Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 17:55:45 +0200 From: Dave Jones To: James Cleverdon Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@steeleye.com, torvalds@transmeta.com, alan@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Summit patch for 2.5.34 Message-ID: <20020916175545.A21875@suse.de> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Jones , James Cleverdon , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James.Bottomley@steeleye.com, torvalds@transmeta.com, alan@redhat.com, mingo@redhat.com References: <200209122035.14678.jamesclv@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200209122035.14678.jamesclv@us.ibm.com>; from jamesclv@us.ibm.com on Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 08:35:14PM -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1609 Lines: 43 On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 08:35:14PM -0700, James Cleverdon wrote: > Patch that allows IBM x440 boxes to on-line all CPUs and interrupt routing for > x360s. Fixed x360 ID bug. Couple questions/comments. - Is this the same summit code as is in 2.4-ac ? (Ie, the one that boots on non summit systems too) - I believe the way forward here is to work with James Bottomley, who has a nice abstraction of the areas your patch touches for his Voyager sub-architecture. Linus has however been completley silent on the x86-subarch idea despite heavyweights like Alan and Ingo adding their support... If you go this route, James' base needs to go in first (converting just the in-kernel visws support). After which, adding support for Voyager, Summit and any other wacky x86esque hardware is a simple non-intrusive patch that touches subarch specific areas. - Some of the code you've added looks along the lines of.. if (numaq) foo(); else if (summit) foo2(); else foo3(); Would it be over-abstracting to have some form of APIC struct, defining pointers to various routines instead of lots of ugly if's/switches/fall-through's. However, the last point may be completley pointless after adapting to use what James B has come up with.. Dave -- | Dave Jones. http://www.codemonkey.org.uk | SuSE Labs - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/