From: Matt Porter <mporter@kernel.crashing.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: "Mark A. Greer" <mgreer@mvista.com>,
linux-emb <linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org>
Subject: Re: mv6360 support in mv64x60.c (was Re: GT64260_eth (Ethernet) Driver)
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 08:24:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040701082449.A9754@home.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1088691201.14216.2977.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com>; from dwmw2@infradead.org on Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 03:13:21PM +0100
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 03:13:21PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> ∃ an Ethernet driver for the MV64340 (the MIPS version of the chip). It
> doesn't use OCP though -- there's no OCP on MIPS. Can someone explain
> why OCP is used instead of the generic platform_device functionality
> provided by the kernel? Should we convert MIPS to OCP?
OCP is used because it is simply wrapping a standard API around a
standard LDM "bus". platform devices try to make non-hardware-scan
capable devices a special case. OCP provides a standard way to get
at all platform specific information that a driver needs rather
than just a few things like platform devices currently do
(io, mem, irq resources).
One of the goals is to extend to allow hierarchical PM and hotplug
in OCP, its a standard bus now, but it's a flat list of devices
on the "bus". In reality, SoCs that have internal PM/hotplug
capabilities have a hierarchical set of buses that should be
represented to properly manage this. Eventually, the idea is
to have OCP instantiate a tree of these dumb devices.
"We" should probably convert MIPS, ARM, SH, etc. to OCP, but
it only recently got rewritten (it's been around for ages in
PPC) in 2.4 and ported to 2.6.
-Matt
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-07-01 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-29 22:12 mv6360 support in mv64x60.c (was Re: GT64260_eth (Ethernet) Driver) Mark A. Greer
2004-06-30 10:23 ` David Woodhouse
2004-07-01 14:13 ` David Woodhouse
2004-07-01 15:24 ` Matt Porter [this message]
2004-07-01 19:10 ` Mark A. Greer
[not found] ` <1088777061.14216.4449.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com>
2004-07-02 23:02 ` 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=20040701082449.A9754@home.com \
--to=mporter@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
--cc=linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org \
--cc=mgreer@mvista.com \
/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).