On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 01:57:39PM +0100, Nicolas DET wrote:
> Hello James,
> 
> On 07/03/2005, you wrote:
> > Hi Nicolas,
> 
> > A few general comments:-
> 
> > - mv64x60 stuff is best posted to linuxppc-embedded
> 
> ok.
> I would just add that our platform (Pegasos II) is using MV64361 from
> Marvell and is a complete computer.

Cross-posting to linuxppc-embedded to reach everyone. In particular comments
from Mark and Dale are welcome.

> > - you change several generic files to support your platform. It should
> >    be possible to support new mv64x60 platforms by writing a new
> >    xxx_setup.c file in arch/ppc/platforms with no other generic changes.
> >    It is a goal that all mv64x60 boards can be supported by the generic
> >    code in arch/ppc/syslib. If some changes need to be made outside
> >    arch/ppc/platforms to support your board, try to make them generic so
> >    that other similar boards would be able to use them. I suggest you
> >    clone chrp_setup.c or katana.c rather than adding conditionals in
> >    chrp_setup.c for your board. Then use code in your board specific
> >    setup file to call arch/ppc/syslib mv64x60 routines as appropriate.
> 
> There is almost no changes compare to 2.6.11 (from kernel.org).

I have appended a (slightly revised) version of the patch, which is against a
saturday/sunday checkout of bk://dfarnsworth.bkbits.net/linux-2.5-mv643xx-enet, 
which is what Mark and Dale are working on. Viewed like that the patch is
against to really manageable size, altough it may need some fine-tuning. The
rest of your comments probably apply to Dale's and Mark's work in the above
tree though.

Friendly,

Sven Luther