From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:44:37 +1000 From: David Gibson To: Armin Kuster Cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: OCP Vendor/Device IDs Message-ID: <20020912034437.GC32156@zax> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On the whole, I think the new OCP stuff is a step in the right direction. However, I think the PCI-like Vendor/Device IDs are unecessary complexity. They make sense in PCI because they're provided by the hardware, but they're just made up numbers for OCP. IMO, we'd be better off using ID strings - these can match the device names given in the user manuals which are about the closest thing we have to a manufacturer supplied device ID. In any case because the identifiers are necessarily arbitrary, we might as well make them vaguely memorable strings, rather than random pairs of 16-bit numbers. PCI and OCP are very different buses, we shouldn't expect the code for them to look too similar. OCP should be *much* simpler than PCI. -- David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a david@gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and | wrong. http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/