Re: [PATCH] ppc32: cleanup AMCC PPC4xx eval boards to better support U-Boot

[Eugene Surovegin <ebs@ebshome.net>]

On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:06:16PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
> Add U-Boot support to AMCC PPC405 eval boards (bubinga, sycamore and walnut)
> and cleanup PPC440 eval boards (bamboo, ebony, luan and ocotea) to better
> support U-Boot as bootloader.

In general, 44x pieces look OK, but 40x aren't. Notice, that we don't 
have any #ifdef CONFIG_UBOOT in 44x sources. Let's not add them for 
40x, try to replicate the same boot-wrapper approach as Matt used for 
44x.

[snip]

> diff --git a/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/Kconfig b/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/Kconfig
> --- a/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/Kconfig
> @@ -212,10 +212,18 @@ config EMBEDDEDBOOT
>  	depends on EP405 || XILINX_ML300
>  	default y
>  
> -config IBM_OPENBIOS
> -	bool
> +choice
> +	prompt "Bootloader support"
>  	depends on ASH || BUBINGA || REDWOOD_5 || REDWOOD_6 || SYCAMORE || WALNUT
> -	default y
> +	default IBM_OPENBIOS
> +
> +config IBM_OPENBIOS
> +	bool "IBM OpenBIOS"
> +
> +config UBOOT
> +	bool "U-Boot"
> +
> +endchoice

Do we really need this? U-Boot build is different from OpenBIOS 
already (we just use vmlinux without any boot-wrapper) and is selected 
by different make target.

[snip]

> --- a/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/bubinga.c
> +++ b/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/bubinga.c
> @@ -89,7 +89,11 @@ bubinga_early_serial_map(void)
>            * by 16.
>            */
>  	uart_div = (mfdcr(DCRN_CPC0_UCR_BASE) & DCRN_CPC0_UCR_U0DIV);
> +#ifdef CONFIG_UBOOT
> +	uart_clock = __res.bi_procfreq / uart_div;
> +#else
>  	uart_clock = __res.bi_pllouta_freq / uart_div;
> +#endif

Why not just rename this field and skip this ugly ifdefing?

-- 
Eugene