Subject: Re: [PATCH] ppc32: cleanup AMCC PPC4xx eval boards to better support U-Boot

From: Stefan Roese <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:02:14 +0200

Hi Eugene,

On Friday 16 September 2005 18:27, Eugene Surovegin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:06:16PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> > Add U-Boot support to AMCC PPC405 eval boards (bubinga, sycamore and
> > walnut) and cleanup PPC440 eval boards (bamboo, ebony, luan and ocotea)
> > to better support U-Boot as bootloader.
>
> In general, 44x pieces look OK, but 40x aren't. Notice, that we don't
> have any #ifdef CONFIG_UBOOT in 44x sources. Let's not add them for
> 40x, try to replicate the same boot-wrapper approach as Matt used for
> 44x.

OK. I'll split the patch in two (44x and 40x stuff) so we can get the 44x 
pieces on the way.

Just to be sure: The 44x boot-wrapper approach you mention is 
"boot/simple/pibs.c"?

<snip>

> [snip]
>
> > --- a/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/bubinga.c
> > +++ b/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/bubinga.c
> > @@ -89,7 +89,11 @@ bubinga_early_serial_map(void)
> >            * by 16.
> >            */
> >  	uart_div = (mfdcr(DCRN_CPC0_UCR_BASE) & DCRN_CPC0_UCR_U0DIV);
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_UBOOT
> > +	uart_clock = __res.bi_procfreq / uart_div;
> > +#else
> >  	uart_clock = __res.bi_pllouta_freq / uart_div;
> > +#endif
>
> Why not just rename this field and skip this ugly ifdefing?

That's better. Will be updated in next try.

Best regards,
Stefan