While building for Power3 (p640), ChangeSet@1.263, 2001-08-15:
Arg! I just fixed this, but the problem is this. I took
arch/ppc/kernel/l2cr.o out of the always-compiled list, and made it
compile only for CONFIG_6xx (which is 6xx/7xx/74xx/82xx) since only
740/750 and 74xx (more or less) can make use of this. The problem is
that Power3 and Power4 pretend to be CONFIG_ALL_PPC, so that they can
be a chrp machine easily. The best way to fix this, I think would be to
make the arch/ppc/kernel/chrp_* files compile without needed pmac_*,
so that these machines could just work. Paul, does this sound like
a sane plan to you?
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
While building for Power3 (p640), ChangeSet@1.263, 2001-08-15:
Arg! I just fixed this, but the problem is this. I took
arch/ppc/kernel/l2cr.o out of the always-compiled list, and made it
compile only for CONFIG_6xx (which is 6xx/7xx/74xx/82xx) since only
740/750 and 74xx (more or less) can make use of this. The problem is
that Power3 and Power4 pretend to be CONFIG_ALL_PPC, so that they can
be a chrp machine easily. The best way to fix this, I think would be to
make the arch/ppc/kernel/chrp_* files compile without needed pmac_*,
so that these machines could just work. Paul, does this sound like
a sane plan to you?
I agree, this sounds like a good idea. I suspect there's also room for
some of the routines in pmac_* to moved moved into more general files in
the cases they are truely pieces of shared code.
--
Regards,
Tom
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linux Guy "My heart is human, my blood is boiling,
gall@rochcivictheatre.org my brain IBM" -- Mr Roboto, Styxx
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Paul Mackerras <hidden> Date: 2001-08-15 23:15:03
Tom Rini writes:
Arg! I just fixed this, but the problem is this. I took
arch/ppc/kernel/l2cr.o out of the always-compiled list, and made it
compile only for CONFIG_6xx (which is 6xx/7xx/74xx/82xx) since only
740/750 and 74xx (more or less) can make use of this. The problem is
that Power3 and Power4 pretend to be CONFIG_ALL_PPC, so that they can
Well POWER3/4 aren't just pretending to be CONFIG_ALL_PPC, they *are*
CONFIG_ALL_PPC since they *are* CHRP machines. Not all CHRPs are 6xx
(actually POWER3 is a PPC630 or PPC630+ so it *is* 6xx in a sense).
be a chrp machine easily. The best way to fix this, I think would be to
make the arch/ppc/kernel/chrp_* files compile without needed pmac_*,
so that these machines could just work. Paul, does this sound like
a sane plan to you?
Nope. :) Not unless we want to start having separate configs for
prep, pmac and chrp again like we used to. Which is not impossible
but it would be a fair bit of work.
The fix you pushed (to include l2cr.o for CONFIG_ALL_PPC) is fine.
Paul.
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 09:15:03AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Tom Rini writes:
quoted
Arg! I just fixed this, but the problem is this. I took
arch/ppc/kernel/l2cr.o out of the always-compiled list, and made it
compile only for CONFIG_6xx (which is 6xx/7xx/74xx/82xx) since only
740/750 and 74xx (more or less) can make use of this. The problem is
that Power3 and Power4 pretend to be CONFIG_ALL_PPC, so that they can
Well POWER3/4 aren't just pretending to be CONFIG_ALL_PPC, they *are*
CONFIG_ALL_PPC since they *are* CHRP machines. Not all CHRPs are 6xx
(actually POWER3 is a PPC630 or PPC630+ so it *is* 6xx in a sense).
Well, pretending is a bad choice of words. They are real chrp machines,
but they aren't 'ALL_PPC', since you can't run on a power3 and a 604 :)
quoted
be a chrp machine easily. The best way to fix this, I think would be to
make the arch/ppc/kernel/chrp_* files compile without needed pmac_*,
so that these machines could just work. Paul, does this sound like
a sane plan to you?
Nope. :) Not unless we want to start having separate configs for
prep, pmac and chrp again like we used to. Which is not impossible
but it would be a fair bit of work.
Well, I don't think it will be as bad as that. It _should_ be possible
to split them out, and move the functions it uses from pmac_setup.c into
a common file. If I have time I'll play with it sometime and post patches.
If it can be done cleanly, I don't think it'd be a bad idea, but...
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Paul Mackerras <hidden> Date: 2001-08-16 00:24:54
Tom Rini writes:
Well, pretending is a bad choice of words. They are real chrp machines,
but they aren't 'ALL_PPC', since you can't run on a power3 and a 604 :)
No, but if you had a prep or pmac with a power3 cpu, you could run the
same vmlinux as on a chrp power3. :)
Well, I don't think it will be as bad as that. It _should_ be possible
to split them out, and move the functions it uses from pmac_setup.c into
a common file. If I have time I'll play with it sometime and post patches.
If it can be done cleanly, I don't think it'd be a bad idea, but...
There is an argument for splitting out prep but I would rather keep
pmac and chrp together since they are quite similar.
Paul.
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
On Thu, Aug 16, 2001 at 10:24:54AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Tom Rini writes:
quoted
Well, pretending is a bad choice of words. They are real chrp machines,
but they aren't 'ALL_PPC', since you can't run on a power3 and a 604 :)
No, but if you had a prep or pmac with a power3 cpu, you could run the
same vmlinux as on a chrp power3. :)
Well, true...
quoted
Well, I don't think it will be as bad as that. It _should_ be possible
to split them out, and move the functions it uses from pmac_setup.c into
a common file. If I have time I'll play with it sometime and post patches.
If it can be done cleanly, I don't think it'd be a bad idea, but...
There is an argument for splitting out prep but I would rather keep
pmac and chrp together since they are quite similar.
I think there's lots of good reasons to either split or not split some things
out. I also think we should probably wait until 2.5 to do any of it.
I also think we should discuss multi platform support a bit more. I'll
start that in a different email in a bit..
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/