Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758412AbYGKJLo (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 05:11:44 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757680AbYGKJK5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 05:10:57 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:55674 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757585AbYGKJK4 (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jul 2008 05:10:56 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:10:41 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Yinghai Lu Cc: Robert Richter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, the arch/x86 maintainers , James Bottomley Subject: Re: [x86, patch] turn x86 VISWS into a generic architecture Message-ID: <20080711091041.GA30198@elte.hu> References: <20080710170712.GA14583@elte.hu> <20080711083946.GU7963@erda.amd.com> <20080711085407.GB20987@elte.hu> <86802c440807110201u4ece646aw4d67a2630d653b33@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86802c440807110201u4ece646aw4d67a2630d653b33@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1371 Lines: 34 * Yinghai Lu wrote: > > Ok. Mind sending a patch for this against tip/master? Both your > > changes and the visws cleanups are all in there and are tested > > through on typical hardware. > > > > (Also, there's the suggestion from Yinghai to first do the numa > > init.) > > could change the numa.c to numaq.c too. that name is confusing.. agreed. Maybe rename it to numaq_32.c as well. Then we could potentially eliminate the NUMAQ subarch altogether as well and merge all it into arch/x86/kernel/numaq_quirks.c, just like we did it for arch/x86/kernel/visws_quirks.c? That reminds me, wouldnt it all be better in a single place, i.e. move arch/x86/pci/visws.c into arch/x86/kernel/visws_quirks.c as well? Such quirks are better viewed in their entirety in a single file, i'm not sure it makes sense to spread them out. This way, instead of having this mess of entire subarches, we'd have a single, clean "quirks driver" file, conditionally buildable into the generic PC code, that would register itself with all the generic quirk hooks that are needed for a given weird box. Ingo -- 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/