2017-11-08 16:45 GMT+08:00 Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>:
> On Wed, Nov 8, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Greentime Hu <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> +#ifndef __NDS32_PROCFNS_H__
>> +#define __NDS32_PROCFNS_H__
>> +
>> +#define CPU_NAME n13
>> +
>> +#ifdef __KERNEL__
>> +
>> +#ifdef __STDC__
>> +#define ____cpu_fn(name,fn) name##fn
>> +#else
>> +#define ____cpu_fn(name,fn) name/**/fn
>> +#endif
>> +#define __cpu_fn(name,fn) ____cpu_fn(name,fn)
>> +
>> +#define cpu_proc_init __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _proc_init)
>> +#define cpu_proc_fin __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _proc_fin)
>> +#define cpu_do_idle __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _do_idle)
>> +#define cpu_reset __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _reset)
>> +#define cpu_switch_mm __cpu_fn( CPU_NAME, _switch_mm)
>
> I see you have copied this from ARM. Do you actually need the same complexity,
> with the ability to build either optimal code for a particular CPU or
> a multi-CPU
> version?
>
> Most other architectures seem to have settled for doing just one of the two
> models. How many CPU implementations to you expect to support that
> differ in all of those functions?
>
I think we can simplify the implementations because we may not have that
many implementations. I will refine it in the next version patch.
From 1583486918412252644@xxx Wed Nov 08 08:46:44 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1583483405039237068
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread