[PATCH] 1/2 Start header file merger (Was: Re: Beginning Merger Patch)
kumar.gala at freescale.com
Wed Aug 17 15:39:27 EST 2005
On Aug 5, 2005, at 2:47 AM, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 19:10:56 -0400 Dan Malek <dan at embeddededge.com>
>> On Aug 2, 2005, at 6:59 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
>>> ..... A stub is left
>>> in asm-ppc and asm-ppc64 pointing to the unified files.
>> Why bother? You may as well change all of the source
>> files, too, or else that will never get done :-)
> You actually don't need to modify (m)any source files.
> Here is an alternative approach. These patches depend on Olaf's
> boot code cleanup for ppc64 (or similar). Do the following:
> cd linux/include
> mkdir asm-powerpc
> cd asm-ppc
> for i in *
> [ -e ../asm-ppc64/$i ] || mv $i ../asm-powerpc/$i
> cd ../asm-ppc64
> for i in *
> [ -e ../asm-ppc/$i ] || mv $i ../asm-powerpc/$i
> for i in *
> [ -f ../asm-ppc64/$i ] && cmp -s $i ../asm-ppc64/$i &&
> mv $i ../asm-powerpc/$i && rm ../asm-ppc64/$i
> Then apply the patch below and the patch in the following email.
> I have built this kernel for ppc (defconfig), ppc64 (iSeries, pSeries
I think conceptual this is ok, just now how we should go about it.
There is a fair amount of cruft in asm-ppc and I think we should be
more selective and iterative about what we move into arch-powerpc.
For example, there is a fair amount of headers that are specific to
platform support code. It's probably the case that alot of that
should move into the proper platform directory.
If we just copy those files into arch-powerpc I think we will never
get around to moving them to the proper location in the future.
We've been doing some analysis (well, Jon and Becky have) and I think
there is some low hanging fruit that we can start with:
1. files that are identical are almost identical
2. files that are not overly ppc specific and seem straight forward
3. low hanging ppc specific files
4. identify files that we clearly want to wait on (for example
anything platform related)
This will hopefully leave us with the painful list of things that we
can start identifying and discussion how we want to go about solving
things (like what should "current" by defined as :)
Now your makefile hackery seems perfectly reasonable if we want to go
that way instead of explicitly including files like Jon's original
patch does. I dont have any strong feelings one way or the other.
The makefile hackery seems less intrusive since we dont have to
duplicate files in both places. I'd like to see if we can come to
some consensus on this since it directly impacts future patches that
we are working on to merge more files and move them into include/asm-
More information about the Linuxppc-dev