From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.243]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B05FDE0BB for ; Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:25:21 +1100 (EST) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c37so101627anc.78 for ; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:25:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 07:25:19 -0600 From: "Grant Likely" Sender: glikely@secretlab.ca To: "Matt Sealey" Subject: Re: Missing patch for MPC5200B register definitions? In-Reply-To: <47EA7E72.3010502@genesi-usa.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 References: <47EA7687.5000102@genesi-usa.com> <47EA7E72.3010502@genesi-usa.com> Cc: ppc-dev List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Matt Sealey wrote: > Oh yes, I forgot.. also, the new MPC5121E stuff includes a lot of unions and > defines to make using both PSC formats easier. > > Since the MPC5200 and MPC5200B PSC structures are different (CCR size), can the > original suggestion (in that thread) to support both with a union and some > defines to make supporting both CCR sizes, be implemented, or do we still think > that MPC5200 (not B) is not worth supporting? Until someone writes a driver actually using it; let's pretend it doesn't exist. :-) It's not too difficult to add it back in at a later date if someone does decide to support it. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.