Re: [PATCH] raid6: altivec support

From: Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] raid6: altivec support
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:55:38 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050120175537.GB32020@smtp.west.cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16878.11077.556326.769738@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com>

On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 08:41:25PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> David Woodhouse writes:
> 
> > Yeah.... I'm increasingly tempted to merge ppc32/ppc64 into one arch
> > like mips/parisc/s390. Or would that get vetoed on the basis that we
> > don't have all that horrid non-OF platform support in ppc64 yet, and
> > we're still kidding ourselves that all those embedded vendors will
> > either not notice ppc64 or will use OF?
> 
> I'm going to insist that every new ppc64 platform supplies a device
> tree.  They don't have to have OF but they do need to have the booter
> or wrapper supply a flattened device tree (which is just a few kB of
> binary data as far as the booter/wrapper is concerned).  It doesn't
> have to include all the 

*shurg*
It really is a great idea, but I think it will just move the ire from
(serial infos, IRQ table, ?) being in platforms/fooboard.[ch] to
platforms/fooboard.h or platforms/fooboard_bootinfos.h

So lets just hope ppc64 keeps getting ignored :)

-- 
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/