From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mundt Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:09:02 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh: RSK+ 7201 board support Message-Id: <20081128140902.GC18785@linux-sh.org> List-Id: References: <492EA011.40707@mpc-data.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <492EA011.40707@mpc-data.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 12:43:36PM +0000, Peter Griffin wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Paul Mundt wrote: > >On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 01:26:41PM +0000, Peter Griffin wrote: > >>From: Peter Griffin > >> > >>sh: RSK+ 7201 board support > >> > >>This patch adds support for the SH7201 processor subtype and RSK+ 7201 > >>board. > >> > >>Signed-off-by: Peter Griffin > > > >Just a couple minor nits. I would prefer if you would send the CPU and > >the board support separately, so I don't have to try and split the patch > >up manually. Additionally, as far as new boards go, you should also > >provide a reasonable defconfig so that we can tie it in to the nightly > >builds and make sure no one ends up breaking it. > > I've posted three more patches with the board and cpu stuff seperated out. > The third is a default kernel config. Is that ok? > Yes, that is fine. You missed a couple of places where the subtype and board type should be wired in, but I just added those by hand. Also, your patches were heavily whitespace damaged, so it took a bit of wiggling to get them to even apply. Next time, please double check your mailer settings. I have now applied all of the patches. Looking at the board support itself, it seems like the 7201 rsk and the 7203 rsk have a lot of similarities. I have not looked at the schematics or the datasheet for the board yet, so I am not aware of all of the differences between the two platforms, but the fact everything you have in board-rsk7201.c is identical to the rsk7203 (with the exception of ethernet and GPIOs being ripped out) suggests that this is something that should be rolled in to a mach-rsk in order to avoid needless duplication. This is something that can be done incrementally though, as the current implementation is sufficiently trivial.