From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 In-Reply-To: <1088078926.1372.13.camel@localhost> References: <1087746455.1547.23.camel@newt> <282B6E73-C58F-11D8-9384-000393DBC2E8@freescale.com> <1088078926.1372.13.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <786932E0-C600-11D8-8121-000393DBC2E8@freescale.com> Cc: , Kumar Gala , From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] Second version of MPC10x OCP Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:03:52 -0500 To: Adrian Cox Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Jun 24, 2004, at 11:36 AM, Adrian Cox wrote: > On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 04:32, Kumar Gala wrote: >> I'm confused are we adding the OCP struct for every 10x device? Did >> we >> get closure on the question if 105, 106 & 8240 would also work? > > According to the chip manuals: > 107, 8240, and 8245 have the internal peripherals and should work. > 105 and 106 don't have internal peripherals. > > mpc10x_common.c supports 106, 107, 8240, and 8245, but does not support > 105. > > The code only adds the OCP devices if the device is not 106. > > My patch is slightly broken where I edited out a local board variant by > hand. I'll produce a cleaned up patch based on my Sandpoint tree once > I've tested it together with the 85xx I2C driver. Ok, I think the 1st patch had this code, and 2nd seemed to lose it (or I did not see it). - kumar ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/