From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from kuuvir01.barco.com (unknown [32.58.34.195]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 228DCDDF2F for ; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:33:34 +1000 (EST) Received: from peko by sleipner.barco.com with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1HiNSj-0003rT-BG for linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org; Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:26:10 +0200 From: Peter Korsgaard To: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] [PPC] Merge common virtex header files References: <1176622062492-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> <11766220692537-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> <11766220693636-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> <87d51sac8l.fsf@sleipner.barco.com> <528646bc0704271149w211bd5cbscb467123ab962703@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 06:26:08 +0200 In-Reply-To: <528646bc0704271149w211bd5cbscb467123ab962703@mail.gmail.com> (Grant Likely's message of "Fri, 27 Apr 2007 12:49:26 -0600") Message-ID: <87slai5vz3.fsf@sleipner.barco.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , >>>>> "GL" == Grant Likely writes: Hi, >> instead? I'm using RedBoot on a virtex platform, and hence another >> struct bd_info than the ML300/ML403. GL> Alternate suggestion: Can we change virtex support to use the GL> structure defined in ppcboot.h instead? (I've actually got that GL> change in my tree and was planning on posting it for review today GL> or tomorrow). bd_t is a stinking ugly mess, but things would be GL> better if we standardize all virtex platforms on the stinking ugly GL> mess shared by almost all the other ppc embedded board ports. That's where the ugly mess pops up - RedBoot uses another (incompatible) bd_t definition than U-boot, E.G: typedef struct bd_info { unsigned int bi_tag; /* Should be 0x42444944 "BDID" */ unsigned int bi_size; /* Size of this structure */ unsigned int bi_revision; /* revision of this structure */ unsigned int bi_bdate; /* bootstrap date, i.e. 0x11061997 */ unsigned int bi_memstart; /* Memory start address */ unsigned int bi_memsize; /* Memory (end) size in bytes */ unsigned int bi_intfreq; /* Internal Freq, in Hz */ unsigned int bi_busfreq; /* Bus Freq, in Hz */ unsigned int bi_cpmfreq; /* CPM Freq, in Hz */ unsigned int bi_brgfreq; /* BRG Freq, in Hz */ unsigned int bi_vco; /* VCO Out from PLL */ unsigned int bi_pci_freq; /* PCI Freq, in Hz */ unsigned int bi_baudrate; /* Default console baud rate */ unsigned int bi_immr; /* IMMR when called from boot rom */ unsigned char bi_enetaddr[6]; unsigned int bi_flashbase; /* Physical address of FLASH memory */ unsigned int bi_flashsize; /* Length of FLASH memory */ int bi_flashwidth; /* Width (8,16,32,64) */ unsigned char *bi_cmdline; /* Pointer to command line */ } bd_t; I should probably migrate to U-boot anyway, but still .. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard