From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71B9DDEE7 for ; Tue, 31 Jul 2007 05:58:30 +1000 (EST) From: Arnd Bergmann To: Dave Jiang Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] powerpc: MPC85xx EDAC device driver Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:58:15 +0200 References: <20070726222225.GB10427@blade.az.mvista.com> <200707302046.10010.arnd@arndb.de> <46AE3C06.5060100@mvista.com> In-Reply-To: <46AE3C06.5060100@mvista.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200707302158.16530.arnd@arndb.de> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, bluesmoke-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, norsk5@yahoo.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Monday 30 July 2007, Dave Jiang wrote: > I don't believe that EDAC core has been loaded at the time of 85xx PCI > initialization. Plus, the EDAC driver can be loaded as a kernel module. So that > probably won't work.... ok, good point. > Also, instead of having centralized EDAC chip driver, > now you have things scattered over various places. One probably needs to add > 83xx and 86xx code as well and whatever else eventually. > > Maybe we are just better off adding entries in the DTS to get around this > problem.... The best solution may be to look at how it's structured at the register level. If the PCI EDAC registers are implemented separately from the regular PCI registers, a device tree entry would be appropriate. If not, your idea of registering a platform_device from fsl_add_bridge is probably more sensible. Arnd <><