From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3CA9C33F.9010007@pacbell.net> Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:42:07 +0000 From: Armin MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Dan Malek Cc: paulus@samba.org, linux-galileo@source.mvista.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs References: <0203210213.AA15856@ivan.Harhan.ORG> <3C99801A.8070002@embeddededge.com> <15526.51621.991410.781713@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <3CA8A96D.9040309@embeddededge.com> <15529.17031.622986.926261@argo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <3CA9EA93.5000404@embeddededge.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Dan Malek wrote: > > If you are using the 4xx stuff as an example, I don't really like the > way that is being done, but I'm severely outnumbered in that battle so > I had to retreat and work somewhere else (like MIPS :-). I still > prefer to wait and see how unmanagable it gets before we start reworking > everything. Again, I don't see how using a bootloader to provide > information and adding more software complexity to drivers solves this > problem. If you can't make it work with #define constants and #ifdef > code sections, how will changing a #define with a variable name and > an #ifdef with an if () {} make it eaiser? What battle would that be?? you're copied on all my changes to 4xx and if you have a problem with it , you should say so:) > >> I have this dream that one day we will get to the point where adding >> support for a new board only involves adding files to the kernel >> tree, with no changes to existing files needed. > 4xx you need 1 config , board.c, board.h and add board.h to ibm4xx.h at a minimum. The 4xx drivers when conversion to ocp is completed will make it possible:) Think of ocp as a static or manual pci driver > > -- Dan > > > > armin ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/