Fwd: Re: [linuxsh-dev] SH-5 integration issues

[M. R. B. <mr...@0x...>]

I screwed up and only sent this to David.  My mistake.

M. R.

----- Forwarded message from "M. R. Brown" <mr...@0x...> -----

From: "M. R. Brown" <mr...@0x...>
Subject: Re: [linuxsh-dev] SH-5 integration issues
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 13:09:07 -0600
To: David McKay <dav...@st...>

* David McKay <dav...@st...> on Fri, Mar 15, 2002:

>=20
>=20
> Anyway, the current port isn't 64 bit, which is why it is an sh5
> directory rather than
> sh64. It should really be called shmedia in retrospect I suppose.
>=20

Indeed.

> Absolutely. What I do not understand is what benefit you see from doing
> it this way.=20
> As far as I can see it will simply make a mess of the current SH
> support, as it is=20
> a different machine from an OS point of view.  Every arch specific file
> will be duplicated,=20
> and will create an unholy mess for no benefit. Please explain what you
> see as the benefits.
>=20

We didn't see any benefits, but we don't want to necessarily tramp over the
current arch conventions that govern the kernel right now.  Even though
it's a different machine it's still a "sh", so we were looking for clues as
to where to best place it in the "sh" echelon.

>=20
> Again, I don't understand why you want to include sh5 code in
> with the SH3/4 stuff. It will be a maintenance nightmare. If we think a
> 64 bit port
> is a good idea, then lets create an sh64 directory and be done with it.
> Otherwise lets=20
> stick to sh5 as a new 32 architecture (since it is effectively a new
> machine).=20
>=20

Hmm, I dunno.  If it's not a true 64-bit architecture (and convention
dictates it isn't), sh64 would be a misnomer, unless we can absolutely
confirm from SuperH a move to 64-bit addressing.  I guess at this
point it does make sense to look at a name like shmedia (I'm not opposed to
that), so we can move on to bigger and better things.

Ok, so we were definitely going down the wrong path there, thanks.

>=20
> And also, I confess I am confused to exactly who you are going to make
> this formal proposal to. Could you explain this further?
>=20

Heh, to the mailing list, of course.  Since Paul and I have primarily been
handling the 2.5 restructure work, we want to make sure we get the "nod"
from everyone else in the community (including SuperH and friends), before
we continue.  Nothing more complex than that :).

Thanks,

M. R.



----- End forwarded message -----