From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.173]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C39D6DDFD0 for ; Tue, 1 May 2007 17:16:35 +1000 (EST) Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id k3so8917ugf for ; Tue, 01 May 2007 00:16:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <528646bc0705010016i75b8c48fr5368d07b7ffcbe1b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 01:16:33 -0600 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@gmail.com To: "David H. Lynch Jr." Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] [PPC] Merge common virtex header files In-Reply-To: <4636C377.4070101@dlasys.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed References: <1176622062492-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> <11766220692537-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> <11766220693636-git-send-email-grant.likely@secretlab.ca> <87d51sac8l.fsf@sleipner.barco.com> <528646bc0704271149w211bd5cbscb467123ab962703@mail.gmail.com> <87slai5vz3.fsf@sleipner.barco.com> <528646bc0704292141n322c145cmc3d2606b13b0b053@mail.gmail.com> <4636C377.4070101@dlasys.net> Cc: linuxppc-embedded List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 4/30/07, David H. Lynch Jr. wrote: > There are a plethora of bd_info's in the kernel tree. I think that > u-boot is probably the most common, > but the u-boot one is huge and full of cruft. Be realistic; we're talking about 124 bytes (vs 64 bytes for the pico bd_t). If memory consumption is a concern, there are far more interesting targets. ppcboot.h is butt-ugly, but at least it's somewhat common. > There are also likely to be any number for board/loader combinations > that are not in the kernel. If its not in mainline, then I'm not concerned about it because then you're patching anyway. I made sure it is easy to patch in a new bd_t so nobody is screwed. When those board ports are pushed for mainline inclusion, then we can add the appropriate conditionals to virtex.h, but in the mean time it's a moot point. > But I would prefer that if there is a bd_info struct that it be defined > by the board not virtex.h or virtex.c. Understood, but I do not want to encourage that approach between now and when we jump to arch/powerpc (legacy bootloader support, yadda, yadda). Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. grant.likely@secretlab.ca (403) 399-0195