Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpm: Describe multi-user ram in its own device node.

From: Vitaly Bordug <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:25:01 +0400

Hello Scott,

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:10:51 -0500
Scott Wood wrote:

> Vitaly Bordug wrote:
> > Hello Scott,
> > 
> > Looks good, only one note:
> > 
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:06:16 -0500
> > Scott Wood wrote:
> > 
> >> +	im_dprambase = cpm2_immr->im_dprambase;
> >> +
> >>  	/* Attach the usable dpmem area */
> >>  	/* XXX: This is actually crap. CPM_DATAONLY_BASE and
> >>  	 * CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE is only a subset of the available dpram. It
> >>  	 * varies with the processor and the microcode patches activated.
> >>  	 * But the following should be at least safe.
> >>  	 */
> >> -	rh_attach_region(&cpm_dpmem_info, 0, r.end - r.start + 1);
> >> +	rh_attach_region(&cpm_dpmem_info, CPM_MAP_ADDR + CPM_DATAONLY_BASE,
> >> +	                 CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE);
> >>  }
> >>  
>  >
> > Can we have something to address upper comment? I mean,any way to
> > have dpram beginning and size encoded in the device tree? We seem to
> > be adding new bus, and still pulling the information from the
> > defines. Maybe I miss something here, but it looks a bit odd.
> 
> This bit is #ifndef CONFIG_PPC_CPM_NEW_BINDING (and can come out once 
> all arch/powerpc boards are converted and tested -- I think it's just 
> mpc866ads and CPM mpc85xx left to go).  The new code in 
> arch/powerpc/sysdev/cpm_common.c does get it from the device tree.
> 
ok, sorry for the noise. If so, I'll try to test-n-fix upper two soon. Unfortunately,
there are many 8xx in ppc, that may depend on cpm (need to check).

-- 
Sincerely, Vitaly