From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Feb 24 16:28:58 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8234A1065670; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:28:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30DC48FC16; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:28:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DEEA046B2E; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:28:57 -0500 (EST) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 865758A01F; Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:28:42 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Attilio Rao Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:28:08 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.1 (FreeBSD/7.2-CBSD-20100120; KDE/4.3.1; amd64; ; ) References: <3bbf2fe11002151610l41526f55r5e60b5e46ce42b64@mail.gmail.com> <201002241041.56118.jhb@freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe11002240750r69779948icc6d242fce26abc8@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe11002240750r69779948icc6d242fce26abc8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201002241128.08698.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:28:42 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.1 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on bigwig.baldwin.cx Cc: Kostik Belousov , FreeBSD Arch , Ed Maste , freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adding shared code support for ia32 and amd64 -- x86 sub-branch X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 16:28:58 -0000 On Wednesday 24 February 2010 10:50:49 am Attilio Rao wrote: > 2010/2/24 John Baldwin : > > On Wednesday 24 February 2010 10:18:34 am Attilio Rao wrote: > >> 2010/2/16 Kostik Belousov : > >> > 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