[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1203958992.7461.46.camel@cinder.waste.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 09:03:12 -0800
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...e-electrons.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Linux-tiny@...enic.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
michael@...e-electrons.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] x86: Use ELF section to list CPU vendor specific
code (Linux Tiny)
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 09:29 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Le Sat, 23 Feb 2008 10:43:37 +0800,
> Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com> a écrit :
>
> > This is not quite what Peter and I were thinking of, I think. It's not
> > at all generic. How about a section that simply contains a set of
> > function pointers, a macro to add things to that section, and a
> > function that calls all the pointers in that section. Eg:
> >
> > CALLBACK_SECTION(init_cpu_amd, "cpuvendor.init");
> > invoke_callback_section("cpuvendor.init");
> >
> > ..which would give us a generic facility we could use in various
> > places.
>
> I see. Probably doable. How would it work in the LD script file ? Your
> mechanism allows to specify any section name, but AFAIK, the sections
> must be explicitly listed in the kernel LD script in order to be
> included in the final kernel image. Am I missing something ?
I can't see any way to avoid it, but we can leave it to future
generations to come up with something more clever.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists