From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com (e4.ny.us.ibm.com [32.97.182.144]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "e4.ny.us.ibm.com", Issuer "Equifax" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B844ADDF2F for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:37:57 +1100 (EST) Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e4.ny.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id mBACbG0X024882 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:37:16 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id mBACbr4T151780 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:37:53 -0500 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id mBADc2vU011530 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 08:38:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 07:37:46 -0500 From: Josh Boyer To: Stefan Roese Subject: Re: PPC4xx ECC Configs, Defines and Source Message-ID: <20081210073746.78ec2187@zod.rchland.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200812101007.16677.sr@denx.de> References: <20081208202152.GA10929@yoda.jdub.homelinux.org> <1228899216.22413.52.camel@pasglop> <200812101007.16677.sr@denx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Grant Erickson , "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org" List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:07:16 +0100 Stefan Roese wrote: > On Wednesday 10 December 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > > Why is there a need to have so many files? I would think you could > > > have a single file with all the ECC monitoring implementations in it > > > called ppc4xx_ecc.c (or such). Surely they would share some amount > > > of code? > > > > Well, it depends how much they share, but I'd rather have separate files > > with helpers in ppc4xx_soc.c if it's small, that way, it's easier to > > only build selected files based on what SoC support is enabled. > > ACK. The Denali core for example from 440EPx/GRx is completely different. > Trying to fit this Denali ECC handling into the IBM-DDR(2) code would result > in an ugly mess. That's fine. I think you are all jumping the gun a bit there. Grant is talking about providing a single scrub implementation for 405EXr, not all of them. Whether the other implementations ever even materialize is something entirely different. Anyway, separate files is fine. For now, we'll have one. :) josh