From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay03.pair.com (relay03.pair.com [209.68.5.17]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F21FEDEFA9 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2008 04:13:17 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:13:08 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Parameterize EMAC Multicast Match Handling From: Grant Erickson To: Stefan Roese , Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <200807010837.45282.sr@denx.de> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 6/30/08 11:37 PM, Stefan Roese wrote: > On Tuesday 01 July 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >>> Stefan and/or Ben: >>> >>> Any thoughts on this? >> >> I was hesitating a bit... do we really need to be -that- flexible ? >> >> That is, either that or use some new compatible entry to detect the new >> reg layout and whack that as a feature bit instead ? The advantage >> of the later is that we have the possibility of doing conditional >> compile for kernels that support only a given processor or set of >> processors (not that we have implemented much of it, but it just >> becomes Kconfig mumbo jumbo and a little bit of defines in the .h >> by turning the feature test into a compile-time 0 or 1. >> >> But this isn't a hot path and not a lot of code so maybe not worth >> bothering... however, it does add 3 properties to the DT and I know >> embedded people (especially Xilinx) are a bit concerned about the size >> of the DT when they try to fit it in block RAM... > > Yes, this was my feeling too. Not the size of the dtb but more the increased > complexity of the EMAC device node. I would prefer Ben's idea with this new > compatible entry too. In terms of the device tree expression, you would both favor something akin to the following? - compatible = "ibm,emac-405exr", "ibm,emac4"; + compatible = "ibm,emac-405exr", "ibm,emac4", "ibm,emac4sync"; Regards, Grant