Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 10:41:56 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, Ed Maste <emaste@sandvine.com>, FreeBSD Arch <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Adding shared code support for ia32 and amd64 -- x86 sub-branch Message-ID: <201002241041.56118.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe11002240718x5182aa93w5a00c657a0fba5f6@mail.gmail.com> References: <3bbf2fe11002151610l41526f55r5e60b5e46ce42b64@mail.gmail.com> <20100216195440.GF50403@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <3bbf2fe11002240718x5182aa93w5a00c657a0fba5f6@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201002241041.56118.jhb>