Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:12:54 -0600 | From | Jordan Crouse <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.25-mm1 |
| |
On 21/04/08 11:05 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:56:19 -0600 > Jordan Crouse <jordan.crouse@amd.com> wrote: > > > On 19/04/08 13:50 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > > > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 10:38:33 -0700 > > > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:25:44 -0400 Andres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:29:25 -0700 > > > > > Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 23:10:24 -0400 Joseph Fannin <jfannin@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 01:47:57AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > which we probably just shouldn't do this at all unless we're running on the > > > > > > OLPC hardware. But we need to do this to find out if we're running on the OLPC > > > > > > hardware! Perhaps the warning should just be removed. > > > > > > > > > > Hm. We could either protect that code with an: > > > > > > > > > > if (!is_geode()) > > > > > return; > > > > > > > > > > Or I could add the OpenFirmware patches which would allow us to get > > > > > rid of this code, and instead check for the existence of OFW using > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > The former is quick and easy; the latter is (imo) nicer, so long as > > > > > people don't have problems w/ the OFW code. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do both ;) > > > > > > > > The quick-n-easy version sounds suitable for now. > > > > > > Heh, I already had sent the nicer version. If people have some fundamental > > > problem w/ it, I can send the quick-n-easy version. > > > > I prefer the nicer version. It is not a good policy IMHO to wrap OLPC > > specfic code with is_geode() and friends. Even by Geode standards, we've > > abused the code greatly for the benefit of the Geode, and few of those > > abuses would translate very well even to the general Geode community. I > > would prefer that we use the is_olpc() and #ifdef wrappers to ensure > > that the code that is exclusively OLPC stays exclusively OLPC. > > > > Thanks, > > Jordan > > > > Yeah, like I said; the nicer version is the _correct_ way to do things. I > just fear that the OFW code isn't ready for merging (see hpa's concerns). > > The code is already #ifdef'd (the original reporter had enabled > CONFIG_OLPC), and the code in question is what determines what is_olpc() > should return. is_geode() is just to narrow the scope of what hardware > the check runs on.
My bad, I missed the key points. This still is dangerous on a generic Geode, but at least if they encounter the problem, we can loudly proclaim "Don't do that".
Jordan
-- Jordan Crouse Systems Software Development Engineer Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
| |