From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 09:32:39 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: "Mark A. Greer" Cc: linuxppc-dev Subject: Re: Patch moving latest linux-galileo common & ev64260 code to 2_4_devel Message-ID: <20030114163239.GD791@opus.bloom.county> References: <3E088CAD.2030102@mvista.com> <3E08A93E.8000409@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <3E08A93E.8000409@mvista.com> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Tue, Dec 24, 2002 at 11:36:46AM -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote: > Okay, as requested, the big patch has been broken up into somewhat > logical pieces (although not perfect). They are available here: > > ftp://source.mvista.com/linuxppc/gal/ I've applied all of this, in the interest of getting things back into sync. What I want to know 'tho, is why is there still the 'reg base' being either here or there. How hard would it be to always have it at the 'other' location? Or, was it decided that it was best to allow this to end up anywhere? Also, I would really like to see the if/else of PPCBoot go away in favor of something like parsing PPCBoot, if it exists, and if not setting up things the 'other' way. ie: platform_init(...) { if (r3 == ppcboot) parse_ppcboot() else find_things_out() ... } find_things_out() { bd_t.memsize = gt64260_find_end_of_memory(); ... } IOW, if we don't have PPCBoot and it's 'bd_t', fill it out.[1] [1] And of course this brings us to bi_recs, which is another flamewar^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/