From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3FD0D477.9000201@embeddededge.com> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 13:54:47 -0500 From: Dan Malek MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pantelis Antoniou Cc: Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: the door is closing for 2.4 References: <16334.33020.624995.521330@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> <3FCEFB59.80300@intracom.gr> <3FCF3CE0.4020008@embeddededge.com> <3FCF4D78.9000706@intracom.gr> <3FCF540C.3010302@embeddededge.com> <3FD032C1.9060504@intracom.gr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > Well if you can get head_8xx.S in some decent shape I can get it to boot > since in a board of mine I don't use the built-in uart but an external > MAX3100. OK, I'll work on that. > And finally do you think it makes sence to try to consolidate the 8xx > and 82xx drivers? We've had the disucssion in the past, and I don't think it is. From a very high level, they look similar, but there are lots of detailed differences (like object alignments, 32-bit versus 16-bit fields with the same names and purposes, and so on). I think we would have files filled with lots of #ifdefs and hard to read. I would really like it if someone would make compilimentary changes to both drivers, when they are doing one of them, but that has never happened. Usually one driver is updated and I move the changes to the other, if applicable. For 82xx and 85xx it makes sense to use the same drivers, and we are, as the CPM is truly identical. There are some mapping issues to work out, but that is underway. I'd like to get this done first, then visit this 8xx/82xx discussion again. Thanks. -- Dan ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/