Re: Synology DS109+ booting NetBSD (to root prompt)

Greg Troxel <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.os.netbsd.ports.powerpc
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Frank Wille <[email protected]> writes:

> Greg Toxel wrote:
>
>> Why do we have to have so many different 'arches'?  I get it that some
>> processor families are different enough that one can't
>> (currently/easily) build a single kernel that supports both, but I
>> think we already have that, and I don't see the benefit of splitting to
>> many.
>
> What is the disadvantage in having many ports?
> Changes in the MI kernel interfaces would have to be updated in more places?

Basically that each port is cognitive load, and something that should
have a build.sh task in the build server that looks for failures.  In
the limit we'd have hundreds, and that seems unreasonable.

> I'm not sure if that really would be the case. When everything is in evbppc,
> you also have to check and fix several files and directories.

Sure, but there are fewer things to do, I think.

>> I could see ppc vs ppce (booke ppc), but I'm boggled by evbpcc
>> and nasppc being different.  What's the reason it can't fit in one?
>
> IMHO not only the CPU architecture decides about a port, but also common
> aspects in the rest of the hardware (e.g. Amiga vs. Atari vs. Mac68k),
> especially when you have lots of devices which only exist for a single
> architecture. Also similar firmwares or bootloaders might play a role
> (U-Boot, OFW, etc.).

I can see that big things were are really fundamental making a port (OFW
vs U-Boot) being a sensible guide.  But having devices present on one
board vs another seems not so important, especially if one could imagine
building boards with different sets.

> And yes, BOOKE is so different that I would vote for a separate port (maybe
> including 440). :)

But yet it's in the same port now, just with a kernel.  

My overall take is that if two systems can just be separate kernels in a
single port, that's better than having two ports, as long as it doesn't
hurt.

But I haven't really been dealing with the details, so I could be off.
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 194 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (NetBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAlAkRRgACgkQ+vesoDJhHiVQ3ACgnFmnWRKSabL/p8u3TZ4DPqHx
+UAAnjjkbQjO5cewJ+1mXvqvKl+s22ae
=lww9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.