From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx.ozlabs.org", Issuer "CA Cert Signing Authority" (verified OK)) by bilbo.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EAD5CB7151 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:17:02 +1000 (EST) Received: from gate.crashing.org (gate.crashing.org [63.228.1.57]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AA53DDD01 for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:17:01 +1000 (EST) Message-Id: From: Kumar Gala To: Nate Case In-Reply-To: <1244670419.29684.1600.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v935.3) Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] powerpc/85xx: Add support for X-ES MPC85xx boards Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:16:56 -0500 References: <1244499228-18602-1-git-send-email-ncase@xes-inc.com> <1244670419.29684.1600.camel@localhost.localdomain> Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Jun 10, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Nate Case wrote: > Hi Kumar, > > Thanks for the feedback. Response below: > >>> + >>> + root = of_find_node_by_path("/"); >>> + if (root == NULL) >>> + return; >>> + >>> + model = of_get_property(root, "model", NULL); >>> + if (strncasecmp(model, "xes,", strlen("xes,")) != 0) >>> + return; >> >> What is this check for? > > Historical accident. A while back we somehow ended up with a case of > probe() succeeding when it shouldn't have, and this was the > workaround. > I'll remove it since it's useless now. > >>> + >>> + printk(KERN_INFO "X-ES MPC85xx-based single-board computer: %s\n", >>> + model + strlen("xes,")); >> >> Why not print the name from machine_id.name > > Because machine_id->name will give us "X-ES MPC8572" from the machine > description rather than the actual board name (e.g., xpedite5370). > > In our situation, we have several boards that share largely the same > hardware design. I decided to just put 1 machine definition per > processor rather than having a machine definition for every board > (which > would get pretty crazy for our case). For example, we have at least 6 > MPC8572-based boards with more on the way, but all of their changes > can > be described in the device tree (e.g., changes in number of ethernet > ports or PCI express controllers), so there's no need for a machine > definition for all of them. > >>> +machine_device_initcall(xes_mpc8572, xes_mpc85xx_publish_devices); >>> +machine_device_initcall(xes_mpc8548, xes_mpc85xx_publish_devices); >> >> Do you not need this for xes_mpc8540? > > Yes, thanks. I'll fix this and the other things you mentioned and > re-submit. Will this be able to make it into your next tree destined > for 2.6.31? If it get submitted pretty soon I'd be willing to take it for .31. Also can you split the patch into 3 pieces (defconfig, .dts, and actual platform code) - k