On Wednesday 16 April 2008, Paul Mackerras wrote:
quoted text
> Michal Simek writes:
> 
> > I think so. Sharing code among archs looks nice and this way is definitely
> > right. But starting with communication with PowerPC guys that this code I want
> > to use in case that this code is not in vanilla. This is not good start for
> > doing this.
> 
> I have a commit queued up that moves lmb.c into the top-level lib
> directory so other architectures can use it easily.  Dave Miller
> wanted this so he could use it for sparc64.  That will go into Linus'
> tree when the merge window opens and will be in 2.6.26.  So I don't
> see any reason why microblaze couldn't use the LMB stuff.
> 

Right, fair enough. I was mostly objecting to the idea of creating another
copy of the lmb code when bootmem should be sufficient for what microblaze
needs. Using the code from lib/lmb.c sounds fair enough when it's already
there.

One more reason for the microblaze kernel to base on top of linux-next
instead of mainline.

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