Subject: Re: Split or don't split arm32?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
Date: 12/22/2000 12:30:37
On Thu, 21 Dec 2000, Ignatios Souvatzis wrote:
: * sharing more source code between arm26 and arm32 seems good to me.
Whatever can be shared is useful, although sharing $MACHINE_ARCH doesn't
seem completely correct. Forcing all code to an arm26 memory model is
: But why do we need to split ports?
It's _possible_ to make these arm32 machines share a GENERIC in the same way
that it's _possible_ to make mvme68k and amiga share a GENERIC. The base
CPU hardware is there, but everything else is different. This doesn't mean
it's the right way to go about the ports.
The Shark, for instance, is the only arm in the bunch that uses ofisa, and
_all_ its devices are attached to ofisa. Likewise, only the RiscPC uses
vidc and podulebus, and only the CATS and EBSA boards have i386-PC-style IO
Of the five main machine types currently in arm32, I see three major
hardware infrastructures that probably do warrant having their own MACHINEs:
- A7000 and RISCPC
- CATS and EBSA285
- SHARK (and OFWGENCFG)
These three groups share much of their hardware glue and attachments, and
likely could have GENERIC kernels per-MACHINE quite easily.
-- Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Wasabi NetBSD: Run with it.
-- NetBSD 1.5 now available on CD-ROM -- http://www.wasabisystems.com/