Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs

[Matt Porter <mporter@mvista.com>]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:52:35PM +0100, benh@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
>
> >
> >It would set a very bad example if it is implemented. In your proposal the
> >records containing the GT-64260 Ethernet information have no indication
> >in them
> >whatsoever that they are for GT-64260 and not some other Ethernet. If
> you make
> >the gt64260_eth driver call a function to grab all bi_recs of this kind, the
> >next engineer who designs a board with other hard-wired Ethernet
> interfaces on
> >it besides the GT-64260 (like an MPC8260 + GT-64260 system) will be simply
> >stuck out of luck as the gt64260_eth driver will unceremoniously grab all
> >records for all Ethernets and there will be no way to tell which MAC address
> >belongs to each Ethernet.
>
> Yah, this is why BI_DEV_TYPE should be GT64260_xxxx
>
> We have several choices here for the design, I'm not sure which is best, so
> please speak up:
>
> When dealing with combo-chips like the GT or PPC 4xx/8xx etc..., we can
> either:
>
>  - define one BI_DEV_TYPE per chip (BI_DEV_TYPE_GT64260, ...). The actual
> device within the GT64260 (ethernet in our case) is referenced via the
> BI_DEV_CLASS (ethernet), BI_DEV_ID beeing optionally there in case a
> given device in the chip exist in more than one instance.
>
>  - define one BI_DEV_TYPE per chip (same as above), and define a BI_DEV_ID
> containing both function and the index (for example 'ETH0') thus we don't
> need BI_DEV_CLASS.
>
>  - define a specific BI_DEV_TYPE for each function (that is
> BI_DEV_TYPE_GT64260_ETH), BI_DEV_ID is only an index.
>
> I tend to prefer solution 2)

Since device macro cells are commonly used across different chips,
it might be wise to orient the records around the device macro
rather than the SoC it is implemented in.  For example, there
are tens of 405 variants plus a similar future of 440 variants
that all share the EMAC macro device and corresponding driver.
A single BI_DEV_TYPE_IBM_EMAC would be most appropriate.  Mot
has a similar scheme with the many 825x/826x variants sharing
the same ethernet macro.  Marvell probably will use the same
eth macro in any forthcoming chips since they already share the
same eth macro between their MIPS and PPC offerings.

Regards,
--
Matt Porter
MontaVista Software, Inc.
mporter@mvista.com

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/