Re: [PATCH 1/6] bootwrapper: arch/powerpc/boot code reorg

On Wed Aug  2 2006 01:15:05 AM CDT, Paul Mackerras wrote:

I wrote:

quoted

The ops structure seems like a reasonable concept, but I question
whether we need to have platform_ops separate from fw_ops, since the
firmware is essentially part of the implementation of the platform.
Also I don't see why we need to do a double indirection to get to each
ops function.

Thinking about this a bit more, why do we need the indirect function
calls at all?  Do we ever want to be able to choose (e.g.) one of
several possible console implementations at runtime?  Don't we know at
compile time which one we will be using, and thus can't we use the
linker to make the necessary linkages?

Personally, I would like to consider a zImage that could be either an open
firmware client or a kexec kernel.  However, I'm not sure that requires the
full ops set.  I just did the seperate image to get the function I needed quickly.

Also, were not some of the ops pre-existing?

milton