From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B02C1DEF38 for ; Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:43:17 +1000 (EST) From: Arnd Bergmann To: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] add a simple 405EP based board Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:42:37 +0200 References: <200808211007.59965.super.firetwister@gmail.com> <1219319729.26429.40.camel@jdub.homelinux.org> In-Reply-To: <1219319729.26429.40.camel@jdub.homelinux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Message-Id: <200808211542.38395.arnd@arndb.de> Cc: Markus Brunner List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thursday 21 August 2008, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 10:07 +0200, Markus Brunner wrote: > > This adds support for a simple ppc405ep board.=20 > > At the moment, there are no 405ep boards in arch/powerpc, so this can b= e used as a template > > for new boards, or migrating them from arch/ppc. > > I2c, UART and EMAC are working. PCI could not be tested, so it was not = included in the dts. >=20 > I plan on adding more 405 board support very soon. =A0When I do, it'll be > along the lines of the patch series I just sent out for 44x. =A0There's > really no reason to have a per CPU/board file if we can avoid it. >=20 This may be a stupid question, but is there really a reason to keep 40x and= 44x setup files separate? AFAICT, the ppc_md structures are the same, so even y= ou can never have a common binary between 40x and 44x, you may have the same p= latform file. Arnd <><