Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 11:55:42 -0800 From: Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: Benno Rice <benno@FreeBSD.org>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". Message-ID: <20030129115542.A79257@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20030129100411.GA3272@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>; from marcel@xcllnt.net on Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 02:04:11AM -0800 References: <20030128190158.A15778@FreeBSD.org> <20030129044548.GI1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <20030128205737.A22274@FreeBSD.org> <20030129051853.GJ1016@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <1043819769.648.52.camel@localhost> <20030129062558.GB1715@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <1043821970.648.60.camel@localhost> <20030129074647.GD1715@athlon.pn.xcllnt.net> <1043828377.648.67.camel@localhost> <20030129100411.GA3272@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* De: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> [ Data: 2003-01-29 ] [ Subjecte: Re: Patch to teach config(8) about "platforms". ] > On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 07:19:38PM +1100, Benno Rice wrote: > > > > Or are you saying that you would prefer to change how the machine > > > > directive works in config(8) and introduce a new "non-standard" > > > > directive for pc98? > > > > > > That was the thought I was playing with. > > > > Hmm. Juli, what do you think of this? > > > > We could perhaps introduce "platform" and make it mutually exclusive > > with "machine", and that way if the config file has a "machine" > > directive we get the old behaviour and only invoke the new behaviour > > when we have a "platform" directive. Then we can start transitioning > > over to it as needed. This is pretty much a no-op on sparc64, ia64 and > > alpha (AFAIK) but powerpc can switch, and i386/pc98 can switch to it > > later on. Perhaps this could be a target for 6.0. > > What if an architecture doesn't have different platforms. Do we > want to give a platform name that matches the architecture or > do we make platform optional? I think I prefer it to be optional. > This could mean we have a kernel config file that has no machine > and not platform keyword. Well, the whole point of "platform" is it doesn't affect first-class platforms, which is where we have "one architecture, one platform". In those cases it would gain nothing, and by not having it, there is no loss. Of course, i386 might eventually grow it, if pc98 is merged, as there may be some things we would restrict to the !pc98 case. But hell, at that point we may have "platform isa" and "platform acpi" or something, for the two different growing i386 platforms. I suppose jhb might prefer "legacy" for the former :) > I've been thinking about the implicit selection of the architecture > based on where the config file lives. We currently restrict where > config(8) can be run from and don't really have a nice way of > dealing with the case where SYSTEM_NAME is actually a path. This > basicly means that we must run config(8) from /sys/$ARCH/conf. > This makes the implicit selection of the architecture logical, > even or especially if we want to remove the restriction of where we > have the kernel config file and/or where we run the config(8) > utility from later. We can always add the necessary options and > keywords to deal with the added flexibility, including making the > architecture explicit. In that case it would work the same on all > architectures without any weird interferences of having multiple > platforms. If we just make "machine" mean more of what it means now, then we're set. Thanx, juli. -- Juli Mallett <jmallett@FreeBSD.org> AIM: BSDFlata -- IRC: juli on EFnet OpenDarwin, Mono, FreeBSD Developer ircd-hybrid Developer, EFnet addict FreeBSD on MIPS-Anything on FreeBSD To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030129115542.A79257>