From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Dale Farnsworth" Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:50:32 -0700 To: Wolfgang Denk , linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: MPC5200 Patches Message-ID: <20031112045032.GA3411@zenos.farnsworth.org> References: <20031110190207.GA12163@zenos.farnsworth.org> <20031112003502.BBA4CC5F59@atlas.denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20031112003502.BBA4CC5F59@atlas.denx.de> Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:34:57AM +0000, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Hi Dale & Tom, > It seems you have an older board? [8 MB flash?] Both USB and PCI have > been tested here with a cuple of devices. They were working fine in > most cases. I do have an older board. Hmm. I found nowhere in your patch where the outbound PCI window registers were initialized. Maybe that's taken care of by U-Boot. If so, I'd like to remove the dependency. I could be missing something obvious, though. I got farther after initializing the window regs, but still couldn't read the 5200's PCI config space registers. > > I haven't tested this merged code on the MGT5100, and in fact, I removed > > the MGT5100 FEC support because the #ifdefs in fec.c were just too ugly. > > Ummm... but they were working. I understand that you want to clean up > the code, but IMHO we should not simply drop support for older > hardware if it was working before. Some people still have (or want) > to use the old boards. That code is too ugly to keep around. It was a hack that I never intended to publish. I'm still angry that it was passed along to you before I had a chance to clean it up. > > I'll insert a compatibility layer to support the MGT5100 FEC if there > > is sufficient interest. Is anyone still using the MGT5100? > > Yes, we. Some of our customers. Some of Motorola's customers. Ok. I'll try to get to it next week. > Here a few general questions / remarks: > > * Did you actually test the code on a IceCube with MGT5100? Kent Borg tested on a 5100-based IceCube. I haven't seen one. I do have a 5100-based Glacier. > * Some files/directories have been renamed into 5xxx, others in > m5xxx. The same applies to the CONFIG_ options: Maybe we can make > this a bit more consistent? > > Given the fact that we use CONFIG_6xx, CONFIG_40x, CONFIG_44x, > CONFIG_8xx, ... we should probably use CONFIG_5xxx instead of > CONFIG_M5XXX ? > > We have drivers/i2c/i2c-algo-8xx.c, so maybe we should have > i2c-algo-5xxx.c instead of i2c-algo-m5xxx.c ? > > There is include/linux/i2c-algo-8xx.h - how about i2c-algo-5xxx.h > instead of i2c-algo-m5xxx.h ? Sounds good to me. > We have include/asm-ppc/mpc8xx.h and mpc8260.h and ibm4xx.h - maybe > we should use mpc5xxx.h instead of m5xxx.h ? I chose m5xxx to include both mgt5xxx an mpc5xxx, but I don't feel strongly about this. > * Does it make sense to add a "Board uses UBoot" config option to > individual boards? [BTW: the name is "U-Boot".] If we do something > like this (which I'd appreciate) we should do it right - there > might be some other boards that use this, too. Go for it. > * In "arch/ppc/config.in" you write: > ... > hex 'Flash Rom Size' CONFIG_M5XXX_FLASH_SIZE 0x800000 > > I recommend to make this 0x1000000 instead - you will probably not > see new boards with 8 MB flash any more. Thanks. > * I think you should not overwrite arch/ppc/defconfig Doh! I noted that you included defconfig in your patch and I made a mental note not to make the same mistake. Oh well. :-) > Will try to run your code ASAP. Thanks for the help, Wolfgang. -Dale Farnsworth ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/