Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 3/8] 4xx MMU

From: Arnd Bergmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 22:56:38 +0200

On Wednesday 11 July 2007, Josh Boyer wrote:
> +#elif defined(CONFIG_40x)
> +/* 40x-style software loaded TLB */
> +# =A0include <asm/mmu-4xx.h>
> =A0#elif defined(CONFIG_44x)
> =A0/* 44x-style software loaded TLB */
> =A0# =A0include <asm/mmu-44x.h>

If you call it mmu-4xx, shouldn't it be used
for 44x as well? I would think this either
should be

> +#elif defined(CONFIG_4xx)
> +/* 40x-style software loaded TLB */
> +#  include <asm/mmu-4xx.h>
> -#elif defined(CONFIG_44x)
> -/* 44x-style software loaded TLB */
> -#  include <asm/mmu-44x.h>

or=20

> +#elif defined(CONFIG_40x)
> +/* 40x-style software loaded TLB */
> +#  include <asm/mmu-40x.h>
>  #elif defined(CONFIG_44x)
>  /* 44x-style software loaded TLB */
>  #  include <asm/mmu-44x.h>

Is it actually feasible to get to a point where
you can build a kernel that boots on both
40x and 44x, or is it just too different?

	Arnd <><