On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Matt Thomas wrote:

> At 12:45 PM 12/20/2000 +0000, Ben Harris wrote:
> >In article <m2n.s.148iGY-000pkG@chiark.greenend.org.uk> you write:
> > >       Given the discussions on a common ELF format for arm26 and arm32
> > >       code, might it make more sense to work towards a common 'arch/arm'
> > >       and then separate arm26, riscpc, shark, cats, and others ports.
> >
> >Actually, I think there'll still be a need for some common arm32 code for
> >locore-type stuff, the pmap etc.
> 
> Actually, using arch/arm as the common cpu directory would make then easier.
> That means I could avoid changing arch/arm32 and just move over the appropriate
> files.  And if arm32/arm26 share the same executeable format, it makes more
> sense for them to share the arch-dependent files.

Hmm.  There are some bits of code that necessarily differ between arm26
and arm32, but I suppose those could always continue to live in arch/arm26
with the arm32 ones in arch/arm.  That seems rather lopsided to me,
though.

> >I suspect the thing to do for a new arm32 platform would be to import it as
> >a new port, pulling in arm32 bits as necessary, and use this as an
> >opportunity to work out what needs changing in the arm32 tree to allow
> >separate ports.  Then, as we get maintainers for the new ports, they can
> >sort out separating them.
> 
> Actually, I'd do the above and make new platform directories.  eventually
> arm32 would then go away.  This is closer to the way mips is done which
> supports lots of processors and different instruction sets.

Hmm.  I should have a look at that and the m68k stuff really and see how
it fits together.

-- 
Ben Harris                                                   <bjh21@netbsd.org>
Portmaster, NetBSD/arm26               <URL:http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/arm26/>