Martin J. Bligh wrote:
>>>>This patch adds a new file, arch/i386/kernel/summit.c, for 
>>>>summit-specific code.  Adds some structures to mach_mpparse.h.  Also 
>>>>adds a hook in setup_arch() to dig out the PCI info, and stores it in 
>>>>the mp_bus_id_to_node[] array, where it can be read by the topology 
>>>>functions.
>>>
>>>Wouldn't this file be better in arch/i386/mach-summit in keeping with
>>>all the other subarch stuff?
>>>
>>>While you're creating a separate file for summit, could you move the
>>>summit specific variables (mpparse.c:x86_summit is the only one, I
>>>think) into it so we can clean all the summit references out of the main
>>>line?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>James
>>
>>While I was at it, I subarchified (I'll cc Websters with the new word ;) numaq as well.  Copied mach-defaults setup.c, topology.c, and Makefile.   Moved arch/i386/kernel/numaq.c into mach-numaq.  Compiles.
> 
> 
> 
> No, *please* don't do this. Subarch for .c files is *broken*.
> 
> Last time I looked (and I don't think anyone has fixed it since) 
> it requires copying files all over the place, making an unmaintainable
> nightmare. Either subarch needs fixing first, or we don't use it.
> 
> Let's just stick with your original patch - it's fine.
> 
> M.

I'm inclined to agree with Martin on this one.  The useless code 
duplication is outright stupidity.  Makefile hackery would work, as 
would James' suggestion of #include'ing the .c files.  I tend to agree 
with his assessment of that as the least of evils.  But until we have a 
good way of falling back to mach-default for .c files, I'm going to 
leave the one (relatively) small .c file in arch/i386/kernel.  It will 
be trivial to move it later, and for now it sits nicely next to it's 
kin: arch/i386/kernel/numaq.c.

Original patch rediffed against 2.5.65 (just offsets) below.

Cheers!

-Matt