From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: Trivial cleanup in ocp_uart.c From: Kenneth Johansson To: Scott Anderson Cc: David Gibson , Tom Rini , Armin Kuster , Linuxppc embedded , Paul Mackerras In-Reply-To: <3D1B3C0D.9B36EB42@mvista.com> References: <20020620073440.GC20689@zax> <20020620155026.GE16052@opus.bloom.county> <20020621005216.GH20689@zax> <20020621143903.GO16052@opus.bloom.county> <20020624074019.GA9087@zax> <3D19F965.86668872@mvista.com> <20020627004144.GR9087@zax> <3D1B3C0D.9B36EB42@mvista.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: 27 Jun 2002 18:52:37 +0200 Message-Id: <1025196757.27926.98.camel@spawn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 18:23, Scott Anderson wrote: > > David Gibson wrote: > > Eek, wibble. It still seems somewhat unlikely to me that you'd be > > changing the peripherals "on the fly" in a real life embedded > > application. Especially considering that reboots are likely to be > > much less of an issue on an embedded system than on a big server. > I guess I wouldn't be quite so quick to dismiss this as unlikely, but > I must admit, my crystal ball is in the shop this week. It sure would > be nice to keep such things in mind as OCP is evolving, though. As someone who actually work with FPGA chips I can assure everyone that those are always to small even when you pick one that seems insanely large when you start. I have many times been in a situation when is could work quite well to have mutually exclusive subsystem but what has stopped that before is that the chips/software usually do not support partial reconfiguration and you usually can't reconfigure the whole part without disturbing normal functions. -- Kenneth Johansson Ericsson AB Tel: +46 8 404 71 83 Borgafjordsgatan 9 Fax: +46 8 404 72 72 164 80 Stockholm kenneth.johansson@etx.ericsson.se ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/