Re: [2.5] Hang on 8xx in head_8xx.S

[Dan Malek <dan@embeddededge.com>]

Pantelis Antoniou wrote:

> 1. I think it is time to look into the
> artificial (IMO) division between 8xx_io/8260_io.
>
> The CPM is basically the same, but there are two kind
> of drivers for every peripheral that is common.

The CPM isn't the same, especially when you look at some
of the details.  There are reserved areas for special
functions that are very different between the two, along
with CPM memory configuration options (cache coherency
options and local memory) on the 8260.

If we can't make all of the drivers common, I'd prefer
not to make any of them common.  From a far away distance,
yes, everything looks similar, but I believe the details
are going to make for confusing #defines/#ifdefs that you
want to remove in some of the other drivers.

Another issue I have is that when I'm working on an 8260
driver, I don't want to worry about the impact on 8xx processors.
If someone is working on a common driver, I also want them to
ensure they have tested it on the other platform, and I don't
think there are very many people able (because they don't
have the hardware) or willing to do that.  Unfortunately,
I have both, and I don't want to be responsible for that
additional work prior to checking in the changes.


> 2. The profusion of platform specific #defines in the
> drivers. Typically something like the configuration of
> the port I/O for the ethernet/uart whatever.

That's always a trade off.  Some people like all of the
configuration stuff together so they can easily see
differences or be aware of configurations they can leverage
when doing new ports/designs.  I'm not a big fan of changing
something for the sake of personal preference.  If there is
some development or feature advantage, that's great, but
just because you like it one way and someone else likes it
another without any functional improvement isn't a reason
for change.  Since one of the goals of 2.5 is to have spilt
out these details, it's reasonable to try that.  I find it
interesting that other architectures are currently trying
to go the other way, more use of common code and fewer
platform specific directories........

> How about having a platform specific source file
> that will export functions for the platform specific
> part of the configuration?

That's a reasonable thing to do, unless you end up with
less than 10 lines of code in a file.  Please, don't put
such code in an include file, though.

> How about taking a look at the patches I have sent
> you earlier about the dpalloc/hostalloc problem?

I got 'em.  There may be other things that are issues
that may appear.

Thanks.


	-- Dan


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