Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:28:08 -0500
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To:        Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>
Cc:        Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Arch <arch@freebsd.org>, Ed Maste <emaste@sandvine.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [PATCH] Adding shared code support for ia32 and amd64 -- x86 sub-branch
Message-ID:  <201002241128.08698.jhb@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe11002240750r69779948icc6d242fce26abc8@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <3bbf2fe11002151610l41526f55r5e60b5e46ce42b64@mail.gmail.com> <201002241041.56118.jhb@freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe11002240750r69779948icc6d242fce26abc8@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 24 February 2010 10:50:49 am Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2010/2/24 John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>:
> > On Wednesday 24 February 2010 10:18:34 am Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> 2010/2/16 Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>:
> >> > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:10:37AM +0100, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> >> The following patch:
> >> >> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/x86.diff
> >> >>
> >> >> starts the effort for having a shared sub-tree between amd64 and ia32.
> >> >> In this initial pass I putted the low-hanging fruits (bios/cpufreq)
> >> >> and what my customer was more interested in (isa/*) in order to
> >> >> kick-off the effort and, in the future, move gradually the code there.
> >> >> With the machine/isa/* cleanup about 10 files are trimmed and I'm sure
> >> >> more can be achieved easilly.
> >> >> There are few things to discuss. One, that I had not necessity to dig
> >> >> about still, is about how to organize headers (include/). Maybe some
> >> >> replication ala pc98 may be good.
> >> >>
> >> >> The patch is big but it is mostly added and removed files (look at the
> >> >> files.X in order to understand better how files movements happened).
> >> >>
> >> >> Hope to see comments and reviews.
> >> >
> >> > IMO the diff is unreadable. I suggest to do actual svn cp (not svn mv)
> >> > operation now, without a review, and post a diff that should be applied
> >> > to x86/ directory, as well as to build glue.
> >>
> >> I think that this patch juices out all the relevant part without noise:
> >> http://www.freebsd.org/~attilio/x86-2.diff
> >
> > I think this looks good.  We should likely be unifying the approach to
> > suspend/resume for timers across i386 and amd64 btw.  pmtimer should be
> > available for amd64 as well for example.  I'm also not sure if adding a resume
> > method for atrtc means that pmtimer needs to change to not frob the RTC in its
> > suspend and resume methods now as well.
> 
> Yes, I would do this (and other simple, already compelling,
> unifications, like the e/rflags one) into further passes.
> In this case, probabilly, more mealpieces we do the better it is, IMHO.

Yes, I would definitely split this up to move single "entities" (e.g. smbios
or atpic) per commit.

-- 
John Baldwin



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201002241128.08698.jhb>