Re: First steps to OCP device model integration

[akuster <akuster@dslextreme.com>]

Paul Mackerras wrote:
 > akuster writes:
 >
 >
 >>I object seriously.
 >>
 >>  Some of what you have might be useful.:) OCP is not just for 4xx.  In
 >>fact the name may need to change.  I have been working on overhalling
 >>this interface and testing the ideas before having a review of the
 >>changes.  I am on the hook to Paul and others to get this out in the
 >>open to discuss and am not ready.  So if you could just relax and wait I
 >>would appriciate it.  I would rather see the 2.5 kernel boot on a few
 >>4xx boards
 >>
 >
 > Two points:
 >
 > - Integrating the OCP stuff into the unified device model (driverfs
 >   etc.) in 2.5 is essential.

completely agree

 >
 > - I really want to have some open discussions about ideas, structures
 >   etc. for OCP support *before* you have everything fully worked out. :)
 >

The discussions will start soon ;)  I never have a complete
implimentation done before I present but I do tinker with code and
validate my hypothisis to weed out the lame stuff. I am sure you would
rather see a bit more meat to my ideas than if my only statement was one
such are your #1 point above. :)  You will just need to wait even though
my employer is gracious and allows me to work in the community during
work hours.

 > Regards,
 > Paul.


Armin


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/