10 messages, 8 authors, 2001-11-29 · open the first message on its own page
From: Paul Mackerras <hidden>
Date: 2001-11-28 22:07:12
I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll use that). Does anyone object to this? Paul. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Tom Gall <hidden>
Date: 2001-11-28 22:15:26
Paul Mackerras wrote:
I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll use that). Does anyone object to this?
Hmmm well not that I object because I don't... but I am working on this POP board here and technically speaking it's the next in the great PREP / PMAC / CHRP chain... CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP_POP? ICK! I'm hopeful in the end it'll fall into the CHRP catagory but some of these firmware differences could be a bear to resolve. But I might be a little over-alarmist too... Regards, Tom
Paul.
-- Tom Gall - [embedded] [PPC64 | PPC32] Code Monkey Peace, Love & "Where's the ka-boom? There was Linux Technology Center supposed to be an earth http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc/ shattering ka-boom!" (w) tom_gall@vnet.ibm.com -- Marvin Martian (w) 507-253-4558 (h) tgall@rochcivictheatre.org ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: 2001-11-28 22:19:28
Hmmm well not that I object because I don't... but I am working on this POP board here and technically speaking it's the next in the great PREP / PMAC / CHRP chain... CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP_POP? ICK! I'm hopeful in the end it'll fall into the CHRP catagory but some of these firmware differences could be a bear to resolve. But I might be a little over-alarmist too...
It's a difficult choice ;) What about CONFIG_COMMON_PPC ? Still a bit misleading, but probably better than CONFIG_ALL_PPC... Ben. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Timothy A. Seufert <hidden>
Date: 2001-11-28 22:28:33
At 10:15 PM +0000 11/28/01, Tom Gall wrote:
Paul Mackerras wrote:quoted
I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll use that). Does anyone object to this?Hmmm well not that I object because I don't... but I am working on this POP board here and technically speaking it's the next in the great PREP / PMAC / CHRP chain... CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP_POP? ICK!
How about CONFIG_AIM or similar (referencing the three combatants in the PPC platform wars)? -- Tim Seufert ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Michel Dänzer <hidden>
Date: 2001-11-28 23:30:22
On Wed, 2001-11-28 at 23:07, Paul Mackerras wrote:
I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll use that).
CONFIG_ALL_PPC_MINUS_APUS? ;) -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Free Software enthusiast ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Paul Mackerras <hidden>
Date: 2001-11-28 23:34:51
Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
It's a difficult choice ;) What about CONFIG_COMMON_PPC ? Still a bit misleading, but probably better than CONFIG_ALL_PPC...
You know, what I am really tempted to do is to split out prep again and have a CONFIG_PPC_OPENFIRMWARE to indicate pmac and chrp and anything else that has a working OF. But Olaf would kill me... :) Paul. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Tom Rini <hidden>
Date: 2001-11-28 23:43:06
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 09:07:12AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll use that). Does anyone object to this?
Yes. For historical note, the old 2_5 tree had CONFIG_WORKSTATION_PPC, which suited most people. But there's the fact that most of the 7xx/74xx boards in _devel now can take a video card and be a 'workstation' too. :) How about we don't do this in 2_4 (or 2_4_devel) at all since it'll be a bit of a maintance headache (2.4.x, x <= A is CONFIG_ALL_PPC, > A might be XXX or ALL_PPC, and >= B it got into kernel.org, ick..). Perhaps we could even go as far as doing CONFIG_OPENFIRMWARE_PPC for chrp/pmac/pop, bring back CONFIG_PREP for 'PReP', and work on doing plaform support along the lines of Y/N instead of group A, B, or C. Or barring all of that messy work, CONFIG_COMMON_PPC :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Date: 2001-11-29 08:26:19
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Tom Gall wrote:
Paul Mackerras wrote:quoted
I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll use that). Does anyone object to this?Hmmm well not that I object because I don't... but I am working on this POP board here and technically speaking it's the next in the great PREP / PMAC / CHRP chain...
Is this a revive of the POP-boards or a we-still-have-a-few-prototypes-lying-
around-so-let-us-port-Linux-to-it event?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Gabriel Paubert <hidden>
Date: 2001-11-29 08:36:02
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Tom Rini wrote:
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 09:07:12AM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:quoted
I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll use that). Does anyone object to this?Yes. For historical note, the old 2_5 tree had CONFIG_WORKSTATION_PPC, which suited most people. But there's the fact that most of the 7xx/74xx boards in _devel now can take a video card and be a 'workstation' too. :)
Right. But even older ones, for example I have MVME boards with PMC video
modules (that's _the_ reason for which I wrote a x86 BIOS ROM emulator,
which will hopefully end up one day in the source tree) which are almost
5 years old.
MVME boards for example are not workstation and yet are PreP or OF-less
CHRP. Why not doing it the other way around, or at least not presenting
the option in the configuration: if you don't select a specific machine,
set CONFIG_{ALL,COMMON,VULGAR,GENERIC}_PPC (pick te one you prefer, I'm
not a native english speaker).
Of course you could also invert the "polarity" of the definition, although
having to select the CONFIG_ELITIST_PPC to specify a non Pmac/PreP/CHRP
machine might not sound politically correct to some people :-)
CONFIG_SPECIFIC_PPC does not sound that bad, however.
[The following is a message from Tom on July 5th, I had started to answer
and then it got lost in a long list of postponed-msgs: it's the day my
second son was born :-)]
quoted
Which leads me to ask what are the advantages of making gemini part of CONFIG_ALL_PPC? Is it that gemini is sufficiently close to a prep that we might as well treat it as a prep?I'm definatly not an expert on the boards, but, iirc, they're as 'PReP' as many of the ports in 2_4_devel. They're not 100% compliant, but they could work, but sub-optimally.
It's hard to tell which boards are 100% PreP compliant, given the fuzzyness of the specification. Regards, Gabriel. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Tom Gall <hidden>
Date: 2001-11-29 17:05:37
Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2001, Tom Gall wrote:quoted
Paul Mackerras wrote:quoted
I want to rename CONFIG_ALL_PPC to CONFIG_PREP_PMAC_CHRP in the linuxppc_2_4_devel tree (or if anyone can suggest a better name I'll use that). Does anyone object to this?Hmmm well not that I object because I don't... but I am working on this POP board here and technically speaking it's the next in the great PREP / PMAC / CHRP chain...Is this a revive of the POP-boards or a we-still-have-a-few-prototypes-lying- around-so-let-us-port-Linux-to-it event?
Real product in this case. It has a GA (general availability) date and everything.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,Regards, Tom -- Tom Gall - [embedded] [PPC64 | PPC32] Code Monkey Peace, Love & "Where's the ka-boom? There was Linux Technology Center supposed to be an earth http://www.ibm.com/linux/ltc/ shattering ka-boom!" (w) tom_gall@vnet.ibm.com -- Marvin Martian (w) 507-253-4558 (h) tgall@rochcivictheatre.org ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/