Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 & ML403 patches

From: Peter Ryser <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:06:20 -0800

> I don't understand what you mean.  It sounds like your suggesting I do 
> exactly opposite what you're arguing; hand modify one of the 
> xparameters_*.h files.  Are you saying that edk can't generate Linux 
> redefines for the ml403 at the moment? 

Yes, it can. It looks they are not present in the xparameters_ml403.h 
that you submitted as part of your patch. I'll send you the 
automatically generated file in a seperate email.

> I do *not* think I should replace the edk-generated 
> xparameters_ml403.h with a hacked xparameters_ml300.h file.  I'd 
> rather use the generated _ml403 file and change the infrastructure 
> when the Linux redefines are ready. 

See above. BTW, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the process in 
EDK. Let me know if I can help you step through it.

>> That's not a recommended flow. It's very easy to create an EDK design 
>> with the proper settings and since it is very likely that things 
>> change during the design process of the FPGA the small investment 
>> into making the proper settings in the tool will save a lot of time 
>> in the end.
>
>
> I understand that it's not *recommended*; I'm just saying it's not 
> always *reality*  :p 

Yeah, that's true for user projects. However, I hope that we can get the 
default included in the Linux 2.6 kernel right.

> Yes; but I already said that I'll change the patch to use the Xilinx 
> redefines.  My argument is simply that *if* changes are required, 
> there is a way for the user to do it.  In the normal (recommended) 
> case; nothing will need to be done.  (think Larry Wall's quote: "easy 
> things easy; hard things possible)
>
> When it is needed; the fixups will be in xparameters.h; not 
> xparameters_*.h; and they'll be for a specific port.  The fixups will 
> only need to be done once per project (most likely). 

I'm not sure that I follow your argument here.

> My point is that the Linux redefines are useful to more than just 
> Linux ports.  Don't you think standalone apps could also benefit from 
> a sane-set of defines for peripherals?  In other words; shouldn't the 
> Linux redefines be always available (and called something more generic)? 

I see what you mean and I tend to agree.

> okay, I'll change the patch to use those names. 

Great. Thanks.

- Peter