linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Jon Loeliger <jdl@freescale.com>
Cc: Jon Masters <jonathan@jonmasters.org>,
	Andrei Konovalov <akonovalov@ru.mvista.com>,
	Sylvain Munaut <tnt@246tNt.com>,
	Linux PPC Embedded list <linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org>,
	Jakob Viketoft <jakob.viketoft@bitsim.se>
Subject: Re: Flat OF Device Tree for ppc32 [was: Platform bus/ppc sys model...]
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2005 10:49:36 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050407174936.GR3396@smtp.west.cox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1112895351.11987.89.camel@cashmere.sps.mot.com>

On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 12:35:51PM -0500, Jon Loeliger wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 12:20, Tom Rini wrote:
> > Part of the point of this is to move to a defined interface :)
> 
> I've extracted a defined interface for the _current_ bd_t
> structure so far.  I'm telling you, you're not going to
> like it... :-)
> 
> So what do you want to do with it?  Specifically, my tree
> is in this state:
> 
>     - I have made two files, a .c and a .h that contain
>       essentially a grand-union of all of the bd_t and 
>       board_info structure definitions that I could find.
> 
>     - I have introduced shim function definitions that are
>       simple accessor functions to front the common structure
>       definition.

It sounds like a start certainly.

> It is semi gross in that this file contains a plethora of
> #ifdef messes that span multiple PPC32 boards and architectures.
> Whereas these used to be nicely distributed (:-)) they are
> all gathered into one place that clearly demonstrates a 
> few things:
> 
>     - This is wrong and needs to be cleaned up more :-),
> 
>     - Obvious refactoring for common functionality that
>       is NOT board-specific is still needed,
> 
>     - There are 51 unique fields in all the bd_t defs.

The vauge idea was that we would contruct the flattened tree, somehow
along the lines of
cat totally_common.txt > tree.txt
cat cpu_specific.txt >> tree.txt
cat board_specific.txt >> tree.txt
... autogen a header, or whatever ...

But basically yes, we should and must refactor things a bit so that,
ideally, a new 440GX-based platform would just need to supply its own
board_specific.txt (or whatever) and get the rest of the truely common
bits easily.

And ideally, a lot of the generation code can be shared between
kernel/U-Boot/whatever.

> I am currently proving that various platforms still build.
> I'm not going to be able to run-test any boards except
> a limited few.
> 
> I will happily supply a diff of my messings to the list or
> a few individuals who want it.

Please post to the list as an RFC.  Thanks.

-- 
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

  reply	other threads:[~2005-04-07 17:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-03-30  8:00 Platform bus/ppc sys model Jakob Viketoft
2005-03-30  9:54 ` Sylvain Munaut
2005-03-30 13:52   ` Andrei Konovalov
2005-03-30 15:06     ` Kumar Gala
2005-03-30 16:12       ` Jakob Viketoft
2005-03-30 17:26         ` Kumar Gala
2005-03-31 12:33           ` Jon Masters
2005-03-31 15:55             ` Flat OF Device Tree for ppc32 [was: Platform bus/ppc sys model...] Jon Loeliger
2005-04-04  7:20               ` Jakob Viketoft
2005-04-04  7:31                 ` Jon Masters
2005-04-04 10:56                 ` Andrei Konovalov
2005-04-04 11:01                   ` Jon Masters
2005-04-04 11:08                   ` Jakob Viketoft
2005-04-04 16:45                   ` Wolfgang Denk
2005-04-04 16:58                     ` Andrei Konovalov
2005-04-04 16:56                       ` Jon Masters
2005-04-07 17:20                   ` Tom Rini
2005-04-07 17:35                     ` Jon Loeliger
2005-04-07 17:49                       ` Tom Rini [this message]
2005-04-11 15:58                         ` Jon Loeliger
2005-04-14  9:54                           ` Jakob Viketoft
2005-04-15 14:22                             ` Jon Loeliger
2005-04-22 17:33                             ` Andrei Konovalov

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=20050407174936.GR3396@smtp.west.cox.net \
    --to=trini@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=akonovalov@ru.mvista.com \
    --cc=jakob.viketoft@bitsim.se \
    --cc=jdl@freescale.com \
    --cc=jonathan@jonmasters.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-embedded@ozlabs.org \
    --cc=tnt@246tNt.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).