linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] MIPS: Loongson64: Move loongson_system

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

Message-ID: <20210306080337.GC4744@alpha.franken.de>
Date:   Sat, 6 Mar 2021 09:03:37 +0100
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>
To:     Qing Zhang <zhangqing@...ngson.cn>
Cc:     Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
        Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] MIPS: Loongson64: Move loongson_system_configuration
 to loongson.h

On Thu, Mar 04, 2021 at 07:00:57PM +0800, Qing Zhang wrote:
> The purpose of separating loongson_system_configuration from boot_param.h
> is to keep the other structure consistent with the firmware.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jiaxun Yang <jiaxun.yang@...goat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Qing Zhang <zhangqing@...ngson.cn>
> ---
>  .../include/asm/mach-loongson64/boot_param.h   | 18 ------------------
>  .../include/asm/mach-loongson64/loongson.h     | 18 ++++++++++++++++++

as you are already touching mach-loongson64 files...

Is there a chance you clean up that up even further ? My goal is to
have only files in mach-<platform> files, which have an mach-generic
counterpart. Everything else should go to its own directory. So in
case of loongson something

like

arch/mips/include/asm/loongson		for common stuff
arch/mips/include/asm/loongson/32
arch/mips/include/asm/loongson/64

Comments ?

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]