From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from SG2EHSOBE006.bigfish.com (outbound-sin.frontbridge.com [207.46.51.80]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8A06DDDF3 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2008 02:48:42 +1000 (EST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Subject: RE: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Xilinx: add compatibility for 'simple-bus'. Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:48:35 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20080630163429.GE17916@secretlab.ca> References: <20080630034548.A10A81750069@mail131-sin.bigfish.com> <20080630163429.GE17916@secretlab.ca> From: Stephen Neuendorffer To: "Grant Likely" , "John Linn" Message-ID: <20080630164837.DB2ED1198052@mail165-sin.bigfish.com> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org, git , dwg@au1.ibm.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Ah.. good idea... hadn't thought of that, I guess. John Linn: I have no time to look at this. Can you see if such a fix fixes the problem? Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Grant Likely [mailto:glikely@secretlab.ca] On Behalf Of Grant Likely > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 9:34 AM > To: Stephen Neuendorffer > Cc: dwg@au1.ibm.com; jwboyer@linux.vnet.ibm.com; linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; git > Subject: Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Xilinx: add compatibility for 'simple-bus'. > = > Stephen Neuendorffer wrote: > > Grant Likely wrote: > > > > I think the easiest solution is to change the Kconfig so that > > > > PPC_UDBG_16550 is only selected based on !XILINX_VIRTEX. I've done this > > > > in my tree, but I've been swamped with other things at the moment, so I > > > > haven't verified it. > > > > > > This is an easy solution, but it is not a good one. Doing so would > > > break UDBG on other 405 boards when building multiplatform kernels. > > > It would be better to teach legacy serial about the shift and offset. > > > Alternately, add code to add_legacy_soc_port() to skip it if the > > > shift/offset properties are present. > > > > Is there really much of a chance of that, given the differences > > with the bootwrappers? Does anyone care enough about legacy_serial > > for this to matter? My impression was that legacy serial was not > > preferred anyway... > = > You never know, a single kernel build can be wrapped multiple times, and > besides, it is a trivial fix. Just add a test for the presence of > reg-shift and bail if it is present. > = > I don't know much about the history of legacy serial, but I do not > support adding multiplatform restrictions when not needed. > legacy_serial may be crusty, but it does have the advantage of > supporting UDBG which is a useful feature. It may or may not go away. > = > Cheers, > g. > = This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named r= ecipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary= , privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intend= ed recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attac= hments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.