From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw02.freescale.net (de01egw02.freescale.net [192.88.165.103]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26A0D2BDF2 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:43:52 +1100 (EST) In-Reply-To: <41E7A410.6060008@anagramm.de> References: <41E7A410.6060008@anagramm.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Kumar Gala Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 08:43:47 -0600 To: "Clemens Koller" Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org Subject: Re: Kernel 2.6.x to MPC8540/Microsys Board List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , [snip] > My questions are now: > Which is the best Kernel source tree to start porting 2.6.x to the=20 > pm854 > platform? I would prefer to stuck with the official sources. Is that a > good idea? I would suggest 2.6.10 if you want an official kernel release. Is this=20= board generally available to people? If so, and you want support for=20 this board in the official kernel, send me your patches for review. =20 I'll then push them up stream. Be aware there are some infrastrucal changes I'm working on that moves=20= the 85xx sub-arch support from using OCP to platform_device. However,=20= these have minor changes on the board files. > Is it a good idea to just 'copy' the pm854 platform specific files = (PCI > =A0 initialization and some MTD driver options) to the 2.6.10 tree and=20= > see > how it works? I would take a look at how 2.6 is structured for 85xx. I tried to do a=20= better job and provide more common code for a board port to leverage. =20= So for something like PCI, you should hopefully just have to setup your=20= memory map and IRQ routing. > As there anybody who has already a working 2.6.10-something for = MPC8540 > (well, non mpc8540ads). I'm not aware of anyone else with another MPC8540 port, I know of other=20= MPC8560's, and MPC8555/41 ports. - kumar