Re: board specific defines in commproc.h !?!?

[Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 05:33:41PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:
>
> Tom Rini wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 05:18:04PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom Rini wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm sort-of supprised it works.
> > > I told you, it's not that much to do...
> > > :-)
> > >
> > > > Isn't:
> > > > ((uint)0x....)
> > > > in assembly bad?
> > >
> > > Hmm. Don't know. Maybe. But these are just DEFINES! So what should that
> > > be bad?
> >
> > Oh yeah, right..  Hmm, it probably won't break anything then..
> >
> > > > I think we need to have all of these defines enclosed with the
> > > > __ASSEMBLY__ test, but I can go fix that.
> > >
> > > At least spd8xx.h and tqm8xx.h don't have any #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ at
> > > all!?
> >
> > (... waking up ...) Because the only C bits they had are now in
> > <asm/ppcboot.h> which does the test right.
> >
>
> All right then. I can't do more testing due to the lack of hardware.
> Maybe Wolfgang could spend a little of his precious time since he claims
> to have a zoo of boards... :o)
> (Especially TQM8xxL, FPS850L, SM850)
>
> So when can I "bk pull" these changes then, Tom?

Shortly after I see if 2.5.23 boots/compiles for classic PPC :)

--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

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