From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com (nommos.sslcatacombnetworking.com [67.18.224.114]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1CD67C1C for ; Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:28:46 +1100 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20061212162416.06f0dd76.kim.phillips@freescale.com> 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> <1165960058.11914.72.camel@localhost.localdomain> <7152860A-27A3-4C08-B6A5-DFA57A63ACED@kernel.crashing.org> <20061212162416.06f0dd76.kim.phillips@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: From: Kumar Gala Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: consolidate mpc83xx platform files Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:28:38 -0600 To: Kim Phillips Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Dec 12, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Kim Phillips wrote: > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:06:41 -0600 > Kumar Gala wrote: > >> >>> I do prefer the middle ground approach he (and you) proposed to >>> have an >>> "mpc83xx_generic" in the compatible property and match on that, but >>> I'm >>> not 100% certain we are really there yet and I would have been a bit >>> more comfortable limiting that to known fsl boards. But you are the >>> guys >>> to maintain those things, so do as you like there. >> >> I'm against the idea of "mpc83xx_generic" if they want to introduce a >> "mpc83xx_freescale" or "mpc83xx_fsl_generic" I'm fine with that, but >> there is not such thing as a "mpc83xx_generic". > > I took a look at the TQM8349 code, and it looks like it will be > identical in the platform code space. That would subtract the > 'fsl' part from the equation. How about 'mpc83xx_eval'? btw, this > would be taking us back to the original patch, which I like since I > personally don't want to see one file per eval board (I could ifdef > protect platforms in machdefs.c if that works for you). What's the issue with a file per board if all it has is the ppc_md/ define_machine() in it. Someone explain to me why this is a bad thing? - k