From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: simon@sequanux.org (Simon Guinot) Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 15:06:34 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] kirkwood: add dir-665 support In-Reply-To: References: <1303922086-10531-1-git-send-email-camhirundo@gmail.com> <20110503205056.GA13075@gentoodev.compulab.local> <20110504080924.GX19806@kw.sim.vm.gnt> Message-ID: <20110505150634.GC19806@kw.sim.vm.gnt> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Nicolas, On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 09:51:27AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Wed, 4 May 2011, Simon Guinot wrote: > > > Hi Hirundo, > > > > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:54:52AM +0800, Hirundo Cam wrote: > > > Hi Mike and Simon, > > > > > > I've send a machine submit to arm-linux, it generated the mach-types as > > > > > > [stripped] > > > mx51_moray MACH_MX51_MORAY MX51_MORAY 3484 > > > thales_cbc MACH_THALES_CBC THALES_CBC 3485 > > > bluepoint MACH_BLUEPOINT BLUEPOINT 3486 > > > dir665 MACH_DIR665 DIR665 3487 > > > > > > Is this correct for the DIR665 board using mv88f6281 chips? > > > > It looks correct. > > It may look correct, but I'll ask that you hang to it for a while as > there is a desire to stop the addition of such board specific files to > the kernel and move towards a solution such as device tree instead to > represent those board details. For my curiosity, how a device tree kernel will deal with ATAGs ? Is there a compatibility layer planned ? I mean... For now, the boards on market are not providing a device tree capable bootloader. Without a compatibility layer, the kernel support for this boards can't rely on device tree. I assume it is the dir665 case. > > I think that Kirkwood is actually a good case for device tree as the > differences between boards is really simple as it usually boils down to > different GPIO usage and MPP assignments. If someone would like to > contribute to the DT effort on ARM then this would be a nice and easy > target to convert over. I am still not familiar with the device tree format and usage but I will have a look. Regards, Simon -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: