From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Jun 17 21:21:33 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9B4D1065679;
	Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:21:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (bsdimp.com [199.45.160.85])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A5E98FC18;
	Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:21:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o5HLK3Sd074642;
	Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:20:03 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com)
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 15:20:07 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20100617.152007.59640143227150173.imp@bsdimp.com>
To: mdf@FreeBSD.org
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTilFBdzdlf2ZcnHN6_ygiw8qkEAJX-G-R6uSF55K@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTilFBdzdlf2ZcnHN6_ygiw8qkEAJX-G-R6uSF55K@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.3 on Emacs 22.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: arch-specific directories
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:21:33 -0000

In message: <AANLkTilFBdzdlf2ZcnHN6_ygiw8qkEAJX-G-R6uSF55K@mail.gmail.com>
            mdf@FreeBSD.org writes:
: This is as much as request for information as a suggestion.
: 
: I am wondering of the current layout of sys/<arch> make sense given
: that in several cases the only difference between two "arch" is the
: bitness, e.g. powerpc and powerpc64.  The 64-bit version supports a
: few new instructions, but in many cases is the same.  The same issue
: exists with i386/amd64 but because both have been supported for a long
: time the have full arch separation.  However, there has been some
: movement of files that are common between i386 and amd64 into a common
: x86 directory.
: 
: So what I'm wondering is it it makes more sense to have files broken
: up more like:
: 
: sys/<arch>      for common file between bitness
: sys/<arch>/32
: sys/<arch>/64  for files that are specific to the bitness

What files would these be for powerpc?  I thought Nathan's stuff was
common.  i know that on MIPS they are common...

: This would presumably serve at least powerpc and i386/amd64 well, and
: though I don't know for sure I assume at the moment that it works for
: sun/sparc as well.
:
: So... is this reasonable?  Or does the existence of ia64 throw a
: monkey wrench into this layout?  Is it not worth the shuffle (though
: I'd argue that, if we're moving some files to x86 and creating a new
: powerpc64 that it's better to consider now than later).

we're not creating a new sys/powerpc64, I don't think.  That's why
nathan's work depends on my tbemd tree.

ia64 doesn't matter in this discussion.  It is a different
architecture entirely.

Warner