From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from border.exmeritus.com (border.exmeritus.com [IPv6:2002:46a7:f11a:ffff::]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72F99B6F71 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2011 11:04:17 +1100 (EST) From: Kyle Moffett To: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: [RFC PATCH 00/17] powerpc/e500: separate e500 from e500mc Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 19:03:02 -0500 Message-Id: <1320883399-15911-1-git-send-email-Kyle.D.Moffett@boeing.com> In-Reply-To: <4E42AB6F.1050900@freescale.com> References: <4E42AB6F.1050900@freescale.com> Cc: Scott Wood , Paul Gortmaker , Timur Tabi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hello, I saw Baruch Siach's patch: powerpc: 85xx: separate e500 from e500mc Unfortunately, that patch breaks the dependencies for the P5020DS platform and does not fix the underlying code which does not understand what the ambiguous "CONFIG_E500" means. In order to fix the issue at the fundamental level, I created the following 17-patch series loosely based on Baruch's patch. === High-Level Summary === The e500v1/v2 and e500mc/e5500 CPU families are not compatible with each other, yet they share the same "CONFIG_E500" Kconfig option. The following patch series splits the 32-bit CPU support into two separate options: "CONFIG_FSL_E500_V1_V2" and "CONFIG_FSL_E500MC". Additionally, the 64-bit e5500 support is separated to its own config option ("CONFIG_FSL_E5500") which is automatically combined with either 32-bit e500MC or 64-bit Book-3E when the P5020DS board support is enabled. I based the patches on v3.2-rc1, please let me know if I should update the patches against a different tree. The first 4 patches stand on their own merits; they are generic code cleanups necessary to support the later patches. I'd like to know what you all think. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -- Curious about my work on the Debian powerpcspe port? I'm keeping a blog here: http://pureperl.blogspot.com/