Re: [XenPPC] [Patch] Find serial device and platform type

[Maria Butrico <butrico@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> Hi Maria, you didn't include any description with your patch, so I'm not
> sure if you intend it for submission or as a request for comments.
>
> Stylistically, there are some typos, some renaming needed, some
> formatting (e.g. "if (foo) bar" all on one line), // comments, lack of
> punctuation in printf messages, etc. Also, the boot_of_serial() function
> is waaay too long, with structs and unions defined in the middle of
> it...
>
> Also, it seems you haven't addressed any of the comments I made about
> your earlier patch.
>
> More generally, I'm not clear on why we need constants like
> PMAC_HARDWARE at all (yes, I know Jimi suggested them). Why not
> something like this:
>
> ----- setup.c -----
> struct platform {
>         char *compat;
>         int (*init)(void);
> } platforms = {
>         { .compat = "Power Macintosh", .init = pmac_init },
>         { .compat = "Momentum,Maple", .init = maple_init },
>
> boot_of_platform() {
>         for platform in platforms {
>                 if (compatible(platform.compat)
>                         && platform.init() == SUCCESS)
>                 break;
>         }
> }
>
> ------ pmac.c -----
> pmac_init() {
>         zilog_register();
>         return SUCCESS;
> }
>
> ----- zilog.c -----
> struct zilog_port {
>         whatever;
> } port;
>
> zilog_register() {
>         serial_register_uart(0, zilog_driver, &port)
> }
>
>   

A specific question about this suggestion.  Where/how do we put .h 
related to this stuff in the xen tree?    My gut feeling would be to put 
it in arch/ppc for now, but this thing should generalize to other arch.  
Hollis, are you suggesting to keep this for ppc only, and add something 
else for all arch'es one that would, for example, have what has been 
called so far the nohv bit.
I see the following alternatives

ppc only with OF related stuff
global with things like nohv (even tho it practically only happens on ppc)

or

one ppc only and the heck with generalization

or

....


BTW, since we are on the nohv bit once more, I had asked Jimi to clarify 
his position on this:  Assuming a flag somewhere in memory, 
hv_supported, and assuming that on hardware that supports hv, the user 
specifies 'nohv', shall we simply turn of the global hv_supported flag, 
lying about the capability of the machine, or shall we keep another flag 
which represents the combination of the hv_supported hardware bit, and 
the user's wishes.   I like to hear Mark option on this one too. 


_______________________________________________
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel