From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw01.freescale.net (de01egw01.freescale.net [192.88.165.102]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC83867D0C for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:41:22 +1100 (EST) Message-ID: <457F300F.7000203@freescale.com> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:41:19 -0600 From: Scott Wood MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: consolidate mpc83xx platform files References: <20061208190758.6cee088f.kim.phillips@freescale.com> <1165648490.1103.117.camel@localhost.localdomain> <91EF8E0D-06BC-47FD-89E6-6350430946F9@kernel.crashing.org> <20061211155155.26868ca6.kim.phillips@freescale.com> <20061211201055.21031c9b.kim.phillips@freescale.com> <1165890570.11914.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <457F1F6E.4020502@freescale.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Kumar Gala wrote: > On Dec 12, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Scott Wood wrote: >> They *may* not want to (and they certainly shouldn't be forced to), but >> some may not want to define a new ppc_md (or modify a probe function) >> for every new board if all of the differences are encapsulated in the >> device tree. I thought one of the main goals of having a device tree is >> that if it's done right, the kernel need not know about every single >> model of board, just the different components that a device tree can >> specify. > > That's true, and if that's the case you'd just set your "model" to > match an existing supported ppc_md. Having an 831x explicitly claim to be an 834x is just a tad icky... >> If a board has truly board-specific logic that needs custom code in the >> kernel itself (rather than the bootloader), then it can go in as a >> driver with a device tree node (this should be done with the BCSR stuff >> where needed). > > This is not always the case, there are times when you have board > specific modifications you make in the early kernel code. Sure -- I'm not proposing doing away with board-specific machine descriptions entirely, just reducing the circumstances where they're required. > True, but I dont see what the desire is to create a 'generic' 83xx > support. Who gets to define what is considered 'generic'? "Generic" is any board that has needs that aren't expressed in the device tree. > I'm all for refactoring code so my board code > is simpler, but at the end of the day I know there are people that are > going to need board specific code for their environments. And an 83xx-generic machine description does not stop them from doing so. "Generic" does not mean "universal". It means "there's nothing special about this board". If you need board-specific code in the kernel, then don't label it generic. -Scott