linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/1] [MTD/NAND]: Add Blackfin BF52x on-chip NAND Flash controller driver support in bf5xx

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <200711240811.36342.rgetz@blackfin.uclinux.org>
Date:	Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:11:35 -0500
From:	Robin Getz <rgetz@...ckfin.uclinux.org>
To:	"Bryan Wu" <cooloney.lkml@...il.com>
Cc:	"David Woodhouse" <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
	"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"Bryan Wu" <bryan.wu@...log.com>,
	"Michael Hennerich" <michael.hennerich@...log.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
	uclinux-dist-devel@...ckfin.uclinux.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] [MTD/NAND]: Add Blackfin BF52x on-chip NAND Flash controller driver support in bf5xx_nand driver

On Sat 24 Nov 2007 02:15, Bryan Wu pondered:
> On Nov 24, 2007 2:43 PM, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 17:04 -0500, Robin Getz wrote:
> > > It could be a runtime if() but we don't currently have the is_mach() all
> > > set up properly today.
> > >
> > > This is because on most systems that Blackfin ships on - memory is the
> > > dominate cost of the system, and end users don't want to take the either
> > > the storage (flash) hit of having code they don't use, or the run time
> > > (DRAM) overhead. They are fine with compiling 2 kernels for two
> > > platforms if it means things are cheaper. :)
> > >
> > > That being said, we still need to go back, and add things properly - and
> > > just let gcc optimise things away if it is not used - c code is more
> > > maintainable than all the ifdefs we have today.
> > >
> > > This is the goal - it will just take a little bit to get there.
> >
> > For now I suspect you could at least define machine_is_bf52x() and
> > machine_is_bf54x() which are hard-coded to either zero or one according
> > to the configuration, and at least you wouldn't need to add ifdefs to
> > drivers.
> >
> 
> We got some plan to do this, but maybe cpu_is_bf52x() and
> cpu_is_bf54x() are better.

Which was one of the reasons I think we were waiting/confused. There doesn't 
seem to be any consistancy between:

cpu_is_

which I assume refers to specific processor/chipset/SoC implementation?
cpu_is_ixp42x
cpu_is_ixp43x
cpu_is_ixp46x

mach_is_

which I assume refers to a specific platform:

mach_is_dreamcast
mach_is_hp6xx
mach_is_r7780mp
mach_is_r7780rp

machine_is_xxxx

which I assume refers to a specific platform:

machine_is_jornada56x
machine_is_jornada720
machine_is_nokia770

So, we should use cpu_is_ as Bryan suggested?

-Robin
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/