Re: LinuxPPC and Force CompactPCI cards
From: Christian Zankel <hidden>
Date: 1999-01-29 10:53:30
Hello Corey,
Is anyone working on or interested in Linux of the for CompactPCI cards with the 750 processor? Just curious...
Actually, I have a 750 VME board here I want to start working on it as soon as I can find some time for it. (Probably in a week, when I have finished my exams). I don't see much difficulties porting linux to the board as it mostly uses standard components. And the main work seems to be already done (Thanks to everyone working on the ppc-port! You did a great job!). Perhaps it might take more effort to write an own booter, like the 'milo' on alpha architectures, to replace the Powerboot/vxWorks-booter. However, what concerns me more is the structure of the ppc-arch directory. Perhaps I'm missing here something, but adding a new platform to the ppc-arch means changing almost every common file (in ppc/kernel) and adding more #ifdef's and if(architecture==FRC750) to them. I think, these files are getting more and more unreadable. Besides, a lot of platform specific files are also located in the ppc/kernel directory (pmac_xxx.c, apus_xxx.c, etc.). So, adding new platforms means adding new files to the common ppc/kernel directory. I don't see this as a problem if there should only be support for the mainstream ppc platforms (like mac, perhaps chrp, prep). But I'm not sure it's worth it blowing up the ppc/kernel directory and files only to support another and probably less common used platform (like e.g. Force 750) (?). So, I hoped, that the ppc-arch directory get changed to be more like the m68k-arch structure. Here, each platform has its own directory. Most system functions with a platform-specific implementation are variables of function pointers. These variables are initialized by a platform dependend config routine (e.g. config_mvme16x(...), config_amiga(...), etc.). So, adding a new platform 'just' means to add a new directory and make some minor changes to the rest of the files. As I stated above, I hadn't had much time recently, so there might be changes in this direction already on the way. Though it might be unacceptable to make these changes in the 2.2 kernel. I might be completely on the wrong way, so I'd really appreciate any comments, if the arch/ppc should be and will be restructured or if less common used platforms should be left out of the mainstream kernel, etc. Thanks, Christian -- Christian Zankel [off-list ref] [[ This message was sent via the linuxppc-dev mailing list. Replies are ]] [[ not forced back to the list, so be sure to Cc linuxppc-dev if your ]] [[ reply is of general interest. To unsubscribe from linuxppc-dev, send ]] [[ the message 'unsubscribe' to linuxppc-dev-request@lists.linuxppc.org ]]