Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] Basic Freescale MPC512x support

From: Arnd Bergmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 19:07:58 +0100

On Tuesday 08 January 2008, John Rigby wrote:
> =A0obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_CHRP)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0+=3D chrp/
> =A0obj-$(CONFIG_40x)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0+=3D 40x/
> =A0obj-$(CONFIG_44x)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0+=3D 44x/
> +obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_512x)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0+=3D 512x/
> =A0obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_MPC52xx)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0+=3D 52xx/
> =A0obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_8xx)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0+=3D 8xx/
> =A0obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_82xx)=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0+=3D 82xx/

Why do you name the directory 512x instead of 51xx, which would be
more consistent with the others? Do you expect other 51xx chips that
are mostly incompatible with 512x?

Moreover, is it really so different from 52xx that it needs a separate
directory? E.g. we often treat the 74xx and 7xx as 6xx variants.

	Arnd <><