Re: A couple of suggestions

[Matt Thomas <matt%3am-software.com@localhost>]

At 08:26 PM 1/5/2004, Allen Briggs wrote:
> I've been working on moving Sandpoint and another Sandpoint-like
> port to evbppc.  In doing so, I've found that there are a few
> things I'd like to do to help support this.

<shock>!

> I'd like to add a few more _IMPL options.  Right now, we have
>         PPC_INTR_IMPL
> and     PPC_PCI_MACHDEP_IMPL
>
> I'd like to add
>         PPC_ISA_MACHDEP_IMPL
> and     PPC_OPENPIC_MACHDEP_IMPL
>
> with their associated changes.  In this case, I'd like to make
> some of these files, well, machdep in nature and add, for example:
>
> options         PPC_PCI_MACHDEP_IMPL="<arch/evbppc/sandpoint/pci_machdep.h>"
>
> This works, except that arch/powerpc/conf/Makefile.powerpc does
> CPPFLAGS+=-D${MACHINE}

or CPPFLAGS+=-D__${MACHINE}__

> So when we trying to
> #include PPC_PCI_MACHDEP_IMPL
> it becomes
> #include <arch/1/sandpoint/pci_machdep.h>

I ran into that too.

> instead of what I need and expect.  I see three possibilities for
> this.  One is to eliminate the -D${MACHINE} conditionally on the
> specific port/board defining something like NO_MACHINE_CPPFLAG,
> which seems to work OK.  Another is to make it -D${MACHINE}=${MACHINE}
> which also seems to work OK and might be less likely to have any
> side-effects.  The last is to just get rid of the -D${MACHINE}
> altogether.  I don't know if anyone's depending on it at the moment,
> but I suspect that someone is.
>
> Anyone have any thoughts on the above?

Either change CPPFLAGS as above or nuke it.


--
Matt Thomas                     email: matt%3am-software.com@localhost
3am Software Foundry              www: http://3am-software.com/bio/matt/
Cupertino, CA              disclaimer: I avow all knowledge of this message.