From: Vitaly Bordug <vbordug@ru•mvista.com>
To: Kumar Gala <kumar.gala@freescale•com>
Cc: linuxppc-embedded list <linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs•org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] PlatformDevice definitions for 82xx
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 19:21:49 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <42A0758D.5040000@ru.mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <81bbf71b42314c9168681be6ef2725e1@freescale.com>
Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Jun 2, 2005, at 11:16 AM, Vitaly Bordug wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>> This adds platform definition files for 82xx, while the platform_info is
>> filled in board-specific .C file residing in platforms/82xx. Another
>> disputable thing I did - I moved m8260_setup.c from the syslib/ up to
>> platforms/82xx/. The file was slightly changed - added 2 prototypes
>> from the cpm2_pic.h and removed the respective include.
>
>
> Why the move of m8260_setup.c? Also, if this is required can we do
> this as two different patches so we can see clearly any changes also
> maded to m8260_setup.c
>
To my opinion platforms/82xx/m8260_setup.c is more relevant than in
syslib. This is not a vital requirement though, I just want to know
whether someone considers the same.
> mpc82xx_devices.c need a bit of work we need to at least cover the
> same set of devices that 85xx does for the CPM:
> SPI, I2C, USB, SCC1-4, FCC1-3, MCC1-2, SMC1-2
>
OK. These stuff is not there yet because I wasn't sure what should come
first - the platform stuff or driver that will utilize it. So, the
correct way is to define PD first, than add drivers.
> Additionally, the device name can not me FS_ENET_NAME, which assumes
> that FCC is only used for enet.
>
OK
> mpc82xx_sys.c: what is the .value field? is this the IMMR and if so
> why bother shifting it?
Because I want only partnum & masknum (RM, Fig. 4.26), remaining part is
HRCW-dependent and can be written so couldn't be used as a device
identification.
> Also there are a whole bunch of variants that need to be captured
>
What exactly do you mean by this? Enumerate all the 82xx boards in
mpc82xx_sys.c identifying them by immr, or?
> Let's get clean versions of these two files before we worry about how
> to handle FCC enet specific bits.
Agreed.
>
> - kumar
>
>
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-06-03 15:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-02 16:16 [RFC] PlatformDevice definitions for 82xx Vitaly Bordug
2005-06-03 6:13 ` Kumar Gala
2005-06-03 15:21 ` Vitaly Bordug [this message]
2005-06-03 15:26 ` Kumar Gala
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=42A0758D.5040000@ru.mvista.com \
--to=vbordug@ru$(echo .)mvista.com \
--cc=kumar.gala@freescale$(echo .)com \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs$(echo .)org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox