Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:11:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:11:05 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:16396 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 19:10:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 01:10:43 +0100 (CET) From: Dave Jones To: James Bottomley Cc: , Subject: Re: [PATCH: NEW ARCHITECTURE FOR 2.5] support for NCR voyager 343x/345x/4100/51xx architecture In-Reply-To: <200112231913.fBNJDgt01933@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, James Bottomley wrote: > Since the architecture support depends fairly intimitely on the existing i386 > code, I've slotted it into the i386 architecture directory rather than trying > to create a separate one. > http://www.hansenpartnership.com/voyager/files/voyager-2.5.1.diff > All comments welcome. Things like this... +#ifdef CONFIG_VOYAGER + } +#endif *really* gross me out. One thing I intend to do at some point in 2.5 also is to split out the visws setup code to setup-visws.c or the likes, as a, it's more or less unmaintained, and b, more noisy ifdef's. I'd be *so* much happier to see your patch with setup-voyager.c, and a single ifdef in setup.c wrapping setup_voyager() or the likes. On another related topic, the bootmem stuff in setup.c would be so much nicer to be split into a bootmem.c imho. This would also make sharing the x86 bootmem code with the x86-64 bootmem code a lot simpler. comments ? 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/