From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:12:33 +1000 From: David Gibson To: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: very minor 405GP and 405GPr PCI difference Message-ID: <20021003011233.GC1102@zax> References: <20020930040143.GF10265@zax> <20021001052121.GV10265@zax> <3D995EC0.2000500@elsoft.ch> <20021002014219.GF1848@zax> <3D9AA452.5070004@elsoft.ch> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3D9AA452.5070004@elsoft.ch> Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 09:46:26AM +0200, "David M?ller (ELSOFT AG)" wrote: > > David Gibson wrote: > >On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:37:20AM +0200, "David M?ller (ELSOFT AG)" wrote: > > > [stuff deleted] > >> > >>In your proposed patch, i'm missing a way to install a board specify > >>mapping either by using special constants, callback functions to board > >>specific code, .... AFAICS all boards are forced to use the same mapping. > > > > > >That's right. Is there a reason for boards to have different > >mappings? I can well believe that there is, but the current tree > >doesn't show it - all the boards (in the tree) that have PCI appear to > >do the same initialisation of the windows. It doesn't seem worthwhile > >to create board specific PCI initialisation hooks until we have a > >board that needs it. > > Not all boards using LinuxPPC are in the offical tree (yet). I know at > least two boards which are using a "non-standard" PCI mapping. Fair enough. I'm just trying to come up with the simplest approach that still provides the flexibility we need. Based on the evidence immediately available, what I posted seemed like it. How about you tell me something about the non-standard PCI mappings, so I can come up with something better. -- 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/