Re: [RFC] [PATCH] subarch cleanup

["J.E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>]

mbligh@aracnet.com said:
> Duplicating all the code sections into all the subarches is an
> impractical maintainance nightmare. Yet that's how it seems to be set
> up at the moment (kind of OK if you only have 1 subarch apart from
> generic, but not in general). 

well, the way it works was modelled on the asm-arch to asm-generic setup (and 
we have currently twenty of those).

But still, I agree that a default fallback is a better way of doing it.

> If you have a different suggestion for fixing subarch support, please
> outline it .... 

Well, I think what Alan does in -ac6 is the correct approach (with 
mach-default fallback, not mach-generic, which is really PC specific).  The 
only difference between Alan and John's patches (apart from mach-default) is 
the _H _C split and the location of the header files.

I've no real objection to the _H _C split, other than it seems a bit 
contorted.  The intent I originally had was that all subarchs would have a 
small setup.c file (copied and modified from mach-generic), so I didn't 
envisage having a subarch which wanted to use the generic setup.c and a 
different _H directory.  Doing a _H _C split reduces simplicity.

As far as the location of _H.  All I'm really fishing for is a better reason 
than "because they're header files" basically because I believe interface 
containment has value.

James