From: Matt Porter <mporter@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Adrian Cox <adrian@humboldt.co.uk>
Cc: linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] OCP support for MPC107 and relatives
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 08:46:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040614084625.A29057@home.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1087207803.7360.83.camel@newt>; from adrian@humboldt.co.uk on Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:10:04AM +0100
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 11:10:04AM +0100, Adrian Cox wrote:
> The attached patch is a start at adding the internal peripherals of the
> MPC107/MPC8240/MPC8245 to the OCP bus. I've used thus in the 2.6 port of
> my MPC107 I2C driver, which follows shortly. I intend to use this for
> the DMA controller later, once I decide what device ID to give it.
Excellent...I was hoping someone would take care of this for MPC10x-ish
on-chip devices.
> I'm a little uncertain about OCP device IDs. Should there be a separate
> I2C device ID for each different I2C programming interface from the same
> vendor? Motorola have already given us two separate implementations on
> PowerPC.
Well, I've been asked this question a few times in similar contexts,
but I haven't had a solid answer to give yet. Basically, the question
boils down to, "What are the rules for assigning new OCP IDs?". Right
now, there are no written rules. However, we have a software "bus"
abstraction with a massive amount (32-bit) of IDs available for our
use per vendor.
My current suggestion is to use this space to assign unique IDs
per device even though devices don't show up between architectures
(normally). I can actually see cases where two different OCP systems might
share a device, but it would be rare if anybody ever implements such
a thing at all. Please assign unique IDs per device and per vendor
for now. If it gets out of hand in the future, we can revisit the
situation.
> This is a little bit different from the PPC40x use of OCP, because it's
> hard to calculate everything at compile time. This is particularly
> caused by the pcore boards, which use the MPC107 but don't use the
> interrupt controller.
Mark Greer and Kumar Gala each have platforms doing runtime mods, so the
Marvell and 85xx ports are good examples to follow.
-Matt
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-06-14 15:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-14 10:10 [PATCH][RFC] OCP support for MPC107 and relatives Adrian Cox
2004-06-14 10:23 ` [PATCH][RFC] I2C " Adrian Cox
2004-06-14 11:01 ` Stefan Nickl
2004-06-14 11:37 ` Adrian Cox
2004-06-14 13:01 ` Stefan Nickl
2004-06-14 13:24 ` Adrian Cox
2004-06-14 13:39 ` Kumar Gala
2004-06-14 14:38 ` Pantelis Antoniou
2004-06-14 13:43 ` [PATCH][RFC] OCP " Kumar Gala
2004-06-14 13:59 ` Kumar Gala
2004-06-14 14:47 ` Adrian Cox
2004-06-14 15:46 ` Matt Porter [this message]
2004-06-15 0:38 ` Kumar Gala
2004-06-14 17:05 ` Mark A. Greer
2004-06-15 8:10 ` Adrian Cox
2004-06-15 17:33 ` Mark A. Greer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040614084625.A29057@home.com \
--to=mporter@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=adrian@humboldt.co.uk \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).