Subject: Re: The spagetti that is arm32/machdep.c
To: Ben Harris <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Richard Earnshaw <email@example.com>
Date: 06/08/2001 15:00:58
> That sounds like a tolerable idea, though perhaps said file should
> actually be port-specific (I've not looked at the code).
Right, so we have basically four types of system to support at this time:
- Machines that use vidc
- Machines that are based around ofw, which use dev/cninit.c
- Machines based on footbridge, which already provide their own consinit.
- Machines based on HPCARM, which also provide their own consinit (and
machdep, though I think this is substantially the same as arm32/machdep.c).
I think that is it
The machines based on vidc are: RISCPC, A7000, NC and RC7500 plus all the
derivatives of these.
Machines based on OFW are SHARK and OFWGENCFG (plus the DNARD in a
separate arch subtree).
Machines based on Footbridge are CATS, EBSA285 and NETWINDER (some of
which are in separate directories).
So, I propose two new files, arm32/vidc/console/consinit.c and
arm32/ofw/consinit.c, providing the consinit function for VIDC- and
OFW-based machines respectively. Footbridge can continue to do its own
thing for the time being.
Once this structure is in place, the actual source file changes are
trivial, so I think it's only the principles that need agreement.
I've built kernels for CATS (separate arch subtree), RISCPC & SHARK
(though not booted, since I don't have hardware for all these). I've also
tried to build kernels for NETWINDER, DNARD and RC7500; but none of these
compile at this time for unrelated reasons.
Is everyone happy with this?