On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 10:15:03AM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-02-13 at 00:52 +0200, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
[snip]
> Actually, one thing I noticed is that the current patches David posted
> still have a single function with a switch/case statement for hcalls.
>
> I'm not 100% certain what David long term plans are here, but in our
> internal "WIP" tree, we've subsequently turned that into a mechanism
> where any module can call powerpc_register_hypercall() to add hcalls.
>
> So if David intends to move the "upstream candidate" tree in that
> direction, then naturally, the calls in spapr_hcall.c are going to
> disappear in favor of a pair of powerpc_register_hypercall() locally in
> the vty module.
Ah, yeah. I'm still not sure what to do about it. I was going to
fold the dynamic hcall registration into the patch set before
upstreaming. But then something paulus said made me rethink whether
the dynamic registration was a good idea. Still need to sort this out
before the series is really ready.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
