From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wolfgang Denk <wd@denx.de>
Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2004 14:37:16 +0100
Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Re: Patch: Support for PQ27e (8247/48/71/72) chips and MPC8272ADS board 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 15 Mar 2004 15:25:18 +0200."
             <16469.44734.573362.958637@gargle.gargle.HOWL> 
Message-ID: <20040315133721.CF29FC0655@atlas.denx.de>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

In message <16469.44734.573362.958637@gargle.gargle.HOWL> you wrote:
> 
> No, no, it's just E-mail formatting of the excerpt after several
> replies. There is no redundant code in the patch.

You are right. Sorry for the confusion.

> This would require that, for every PQ27e-based board, it would be
> defined in the board configuration file that it's PQ27e and not just
> 8260. Then CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE can be defined conditionally on this
> definition in cpm_8260.h. I personally don't like such compile-time
> definitions because chip version can be easily detected in run-time.

The advantage of compile-time definitions  is  that  they  result  in
smaller code.

>     Wolfgang> PQ27E_FCC_SPECIAL_BASE vs. CPM_FCC_SPECIAL_BASE
...
> Well, the question is if it's better that the CPU-specific code will
> silently handle the differences or we'll make it the user's
> responsibility to define the difference manually. I think automatic
> handling is better but if you insist on #ifdefs, I can implement it too.

Sorry, but I can't follow.