From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2004 08:24:49 -0700 From: Matt Porter To: David Woodhouse Cc: "Mark A. Greer" , linux-emb Subject: Re: mv6360 support in mv64x60.c (was Re: GT64260_eth (Ethernet) Driver) Message-ID: <20040701082449.A9754@home.com> References: <40E1E94B.9060204@mvista.com> <1088691201.14216.2977.camel@hades.cambridge.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 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 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: 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/