Michael Ellerman wrote:
quoted
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64
>> +#define PROCRTAS_ROOT "ppc64"
>> +#else
>> +#define PROCRTAS_ROOT "ppc"
>
> Please don't do any pathname changes. Even if ppc64 isn't correct it's
> what applications expect and what we should provide for a coherent user
> interface.
Humm, ok.
However, in this case 'ppc' (could be 32 or 64 as it is not specified)
is more generic than 'ppc64'.
But it's called '/proc/ppc64' right now on lots of machines, so you
can't go changing it.
Ok. No problem
quoted
Indeed, however I can only test on CHRP. I'll remove the check in the
upcomming patch.
That should be fine AFAICT, you should probably just check that each of
the proc routines checks for errors - ie. just because you have an
"/rtas" node doesn't mean you necessarily have "/rtas/set-indicator" or
whatever.
ok
quoted
The patch also include a small code to create the /proc/ppc/rtas entry.
Should this be done here, or somewhere in arch/powerpc/chrp/setup.c ?
That code is almost entirely the same as proc_ppc64_create(), so I think
you should try and merge them - we want to minimise the number of
foo_ppc64() and foo_ppc32() routines we have.
Ok.
proc_ppc64_create() is now locate in arch/powerpc/kernel/proc_ppc64.c. Maybe a new file could be created (arch/powerpc/kernel/proc_ppc.c) ?
Any other suggestions?
Just indicate me the direction, and I would provide others patches.
Regards