Re: [PATCH] machine-ops for SH arch

[Mike F. <va...@ge...>]

On Friday 03 August 2007, Paul Mundt wrote:
> While it's not really a problem these days, old versions of GCC used to
> have some problems with the attribute -- hence the comment above the
> cond_syscall() definition (asm/unistd.h), which has since been copied
> verbatim by almost every other platform, sh and blackfin included ;-)

when i see things like that i blame the consultants who started the Blackfi=
n=20
port ;)

> Hypervisors like to overload these as well, Xen has its own set of
> machine_ops on i386 for example. So unless you forsee caring about
> virtualization or supporting multiple machines, there's probably not a
> lot of gain in doing this for Blackfin.
>
> In any event, supporting multiple boards is fairly trivial, but you give
> up link-time size savings and push most of that down to freeing of init
> memory. It works out the same in the end, the main factor is how
> constrained you are in kernel size. Some platforms (ie, hppa) also make
> function pointers quite expensive, so there are also performance
> reasons why you may wish to avoid the extra layer of indirection.

thanks, i'll keep these things in mind ... the reason we dont have multiple=
=20
board support is lack of customer demand -- we have yet to find one who sai=
d=20
they wanted/needed this.  as soon as one does though, we'll most likely go=
=20
down that route (and steal ideas from people like sh who've already done it=
).
=2Dmike