* RE: Are 8260 and 8250 CPM interface compatible?
@ 2002-09-27 12:29 Sylvain Latulippe
2002-09-27 13:25 ` Allen Curtis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Sylvain Latulippe @ 2002-09-27 12:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Michael Thompson', linuxppc-embedded
> How much of each of the drivers in arch/ppc/8260_io/ can be reused
> for the 8250? Is the 8250 CPM interface backward compatible
> with the 8260 CPM interface? Or will everything have to be written
> from the ground up?
>
We have tested ethernet (fcc_enet.c), serial port (uart.c) from linux 2.4.19
and it works fine.
Sylvain
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* RE: Are 8260 and 8250 CPM interface compatible?
2002-09-27 12:29 Are 8260 and 8250 CPM interface compatible? Sylvain Latulippe
@ 2002-09-27 13:25 ` Allen Curtis
2002-09-27 15:53 ` Dan Malek
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Allen Curtis @ 2002-09-27 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Sylvain Latulippe, 'Michael Thompson', linuxppc-embedded
> We have tested ethernet (fcc_enet.c), serial port (uart.c) from
> linux 2.4.19
> and it works fine.
Considering that Motorola is now using the CPM in multiple processors, including DSPs, would it make sense to breakout the support from the 8260 implementation and make it an independent option like PCI?
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: Are 8260 and 8250 CPM interface compatible?
2002-09-27 13:25 ` Allen Curtis
@ 2002-09-27 15:53 ` Dan Malek
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Dan Malek @ 2002-09-27 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: acurtis; +Cc: Sylvain Latulippe, 'Michael Thompson', linuxppc-embedded
Allen Curtis wrote:
> Considering that Motorola is now using the CPM in multiple processors, including DSPs, would it make sense to breakout the support from the 8260 implementation and make it an independent option like PCI?
It would be reasonable, but I don't want to start that until we have another
processor port in the works that also requires it. Simply changing all of
this for the sake of doing so with grand plans how it can be used anywhere
isn't a useful way to use our resources. I particularly don't like change
for the sake of change, because it makes it difficult for us that rely
on things to work, and I really want to avoid a mess like 4xx OCP :-).
Thanks.
-- Dan
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Are 8260 and 8250 CPM interface compatible?
@ 2002-09-27 4:47 Michael Thompson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michael Thompson @ 2002-09-27 4:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linuxppc-embedded
How much of each of the drivers in arch/ppc/8260_io/ can be reused
for the 8250? Is the 8250 CPM interface backward compatible
with the 8260 CPM interface? Or will everything have to be written
from the ground up?
Michael Thompson
mickey@berkeley.innomedia.com
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-09-27 15:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-09-27 12:29 Are 8260 and 8250 CPM interface compatible? Sylvain Latulippe
2002-09-27 13:25 ` Allen Curtis
2002-09-27 15:53 ` Dan Malek
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-09-27 4:47 Michael Thompson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).