From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754298Ab2DWTki (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:40:38 -0400 Received: from atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz ([195.113.26.193]:45893 "EHLO atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752952Ab2DWTkg (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:40:36 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:40:42 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: kernel list , linux-arm-kernel , wd@denx.de Subject: Sharing header files -- arch/arm/mach-generic ? Message-ID: <20120423194042.GA5734@elf.ucw.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! I have new architecture I'd like to merge into the mainline. It has some code very similar to existing plaforms (for example real differences to mach-realview/platsmp.c are two lines.) Is that a problem? Should mach-generic/platsmp.c be created, so code can be better shared? Or are the code pieces small enough that this duplication can be ignored? headsmp.S is another candidate for sharing. AFAICT we have 4 times identical code in the tree already: ./mach-exynos/headsmp.S: ldmia r4, {r5, r6} ./plat-versatile/headsmp.S: ldmia r4, {r5, r6} ./mach-ux500/headsmp.S: ldmia r4, {r5, r6} ./mach-msm/headsmp.S: ldmia r4, {r5, r6} Thoughts? Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html