From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from outbound-mail-06.bluehost.com (outbound-mail-06.bluehost.com [67.138.240.206]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9319E68926 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 04:30:47 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <43CD29B4.5070607@secretlab.ca> Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:30:28 -0700 From: Grant Likely MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Peter Ryser Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 & ML403 patches References: <20060114094658.GA12639@secretlab.ca> <43CC5453.3060702@xilinx.com> <43CC9F35.8010305@secretlab.ca> <43CCE89B.8050603@xilinx.com> <43CD1021.7080205@secretlab.ca> <43CD240C.2050907@xilinx.com> In-Reply-To: <43CD240C.2050907@xilinx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: Andrei Konovalov , Grant Likely , Rick Moleres , linuxppc-embedded List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Peter Ryser wrote: > >> I don't understand what you mean. It sounds like your suggesting I do >> exactly opposite what you're arguing; hand modify one of the >> xparameters_*.h files. Are you saying that edk can't generate Linux >> redefines for the ml403 at the moment? > > > Yes, it can. It looks they are not present in the xparameters_ml403.h > that you submitted as part of your patch. I'll send you the > automatically generated file in a seperate email. okay good; I misunderstood what you were saying. I pulled xparameters_ml403.h out of the ref design w/ the standalone bsp. I just haven't bothered trying to generating the Linux bsp yet. > >> I do *not* think I should replace the edk-generated >> xparameters_ml403.h with a hacked xparameters_ml300.h file. I'd >> rather use the generated _ml403 file and change the infrastructure >> when the Linux redefines are ready. > > > See above. BTW, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the process in > EDK. Let me know if I can help you step through it. okay, I'll ping you when I've got questions. >> I understand that it's not *recommended*; I'm just saying it's not >> always *reality* :p > > > Yeah, that's true for user projects. However, I hope that we can get the > default included in the Linux 2.6 kernel right. yes, definately > >> Yes; but I already said that I'll change the patch to use the Xilinx >> redefines. My argument is simply that *if* changes are required, >> there is a way for the user to do it. In the normal (recommended) >> case; nothing will need to be done. (think Larry Wall's quote: "easy >> things easy; hard things possible) >> >> When it is needed; the fixups will be in xparameters.h; not >> xparameters_*.h; and they'll be for a specific port. The fixups will >> only need to be done once per project (most likely). > > > I'm not sure that I follow your argument here. I'll compose my answer in code; watch for patches. :) btw, once Linus closes the 2.6.16 merge window, it looks like we may be able to use the powerpc.git tree for tracking these changes. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. (403) 663-0761