Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] powerpc/e500: separate e500 from e500mc

On Nov 9, 2011, at 6:03 PM, Kyle Moffett wrote:

Hello,
=20
I saw Baruch Siach's patch:
 powerpc: 85xx: separate e500 from e500mc
=20
Unfortunately, that patch breaks the dependencies for the P5020DS
platform and does not fix the underlying code which does not
understand what the ambiguous "CONFIG_E500" means.
=20
In order to fix the issue at the fundamental level, I created the
following 17-patch series loosely based on Baruch's patch.
=20
=3D=3D=3D High-Level Summary =3D=3D=3D
=20
The e500v1/v2 and e500mc/e5500 CPU families are not compatible with
each other, yet they share the same "CONFIG_E500" Kconfig option.
=20
The following patch series splits the 32-bit CPU support into two
separate options: "CONFIG_FSL_E500_V1_V2" and "CONFIG_FSL_E500MC".
Additionally, the 64-bit e5500 support is separated to its own config
option ("CONFIG_FSL_E5500") which is automatically combined with
either 32-bit e500MC or 64-bit Book-3E when the P5020DS board support
is enabled.

So its clear from the community that there is confusion here and we need =
to clean this up.  I guess my attempt to support an kernel that ran on =
both E500v2 and E500mc isn't worth it.  However I don't want to =
completely remove the ability to do this.

Towards the cleanup I'd ask for a proposal on what exactly the CONFIG_ =
options we'd end up with would be and their meaning.

So today we have:

CONFIG_E500
CONFIG_PPC_E500MC

What do we want to move to?  I want to keep the builds such that we have =
only 2 classes:  e500V1/V2 and e500mc/e5500/e6500/.../eX500.  I see no =
reason to hyper-optimize e500mc vs e5500 vs e6500.

- k=