Porting to /arch/powerpc

Porting to /arch/powerpc

[Rune Torgersen]

Is there a good platform/documents to look at for doing a board port
from arch/ppc to arch/powerpc?
I'm porting a 8266/8280 based board with PCI and 2 FCC ethernets
connected phy-less to a switch.

Re: Porting to /arch/powerpc

[Scott Wood]

Rune Torgersen wrote:
> Is there a good platform/documents to look at for doing a board port
> from arch/ppc to arch/powerpc?
> I'm porting a 8266/8280 based board with PCI and 2 FCC ethernets
> connected phy-less to a switch.

Look at head-of-tree for 82xx stuff (lots of changes since 2.6.23)... 
any of the 82xx boards in arch/powerpc should be good to look at.

The fs_enet driver doesn't currently support phy-less directly, but you 
may be able to do something with the fixed phy driver.

-Scott

RE: Porting to /arch/powerpc

[Joakim Tjernlund]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> linuxppc-embedded-bounces+joakim.tjernlund=lumentis.se@ozlabs.
> org 
> [mailto:linuxppc-embedded-bounces+joakim.tjernlund=lumentis.se
> @ozlabs.org] On Behalf Of Scott Wood
> Sent: den 26 oktober 2007 00:08
> To: Rune Torgersen
> Cc: linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: Porting to /arch/powerpc
> 
> Rune Torgersen wrote:
> > Is there a good platform/documents to look at for doing a board port
> > from arch/ppc to arch/powerpc?
> > I'm porting a 8266/8280 based board with PCI and 2 FCC ethernets
> > connected phy-less to a switch.
> 
> Look at head-of-tree for 82xx stuff (lots of changes since 2.6.23)... 
> any of the 82xx boards in arch/powerpc should be good to look at.
> 
> The fs_enet driver doesn't currently support phy-less 
> directly, but you 
> may be able to do something with the fixed phy driver.

How is PHY less support supposed to be impl.? I would like
to do the same for ucc_geth. I once sent a patch that made
the PHY optional, but it never made into the driver.

   Jocke

> 
> -Scott

Re: Porting to /arch/powerpc

[Scott Wood]

Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
>> The fs_enet driver doesn't currently support phy-less 
>> directly, but you 
>> may be able to do something with the fixed phy driver.
> 
> How is PHY less support supposed to be impl.? I would like
> to do the same for ucc_geth. I once sent a patch that made
> the PHY optional, but it never made into the driver.

Basically, the driver needs to assume the link is up if there's no 
phy-handle in the device tree, rather than error out.

-Scott

RE: Porting to /arch/powerpc

[Joakim Tjernlund]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Wood [mailto:scottwood@freescale.com] 
> Sent: den 26 oktober 2007 20:10
> To: Joakim Tjernlund
> Cc: 'Rune Torgersen'; linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org
> Subject: Re: Porting to /arch/powerpc
> 
> Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> >> The fs_enet driver doesn't currently support phy-less 
> >> directly, but you 
> >> may be able to do something with the fixed phy driver.
> > 
> > How is PHY less support supposed to be impl.? I would like
> > to do the same for ucc_geth. I once sent a patch that made
> > the PHY optional, but it never made into the driver.
> 
> Basically, the driver needs to assume the link is up if there's no 
> phy-handle in the device tree, rather than error out.
> 
> -Scott

Right, that was what I did, but I think Leo didn't want it at the time.
Leo?

 Jocke