On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:59:32AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote:
Mark A. Greer writes:
quoted
Wait, I can't b/c then *everyone* will have this subtraction happen and
everyone but me would be broken.
With a separate field, I don't mess up other board ports.
Well, how many other boards are there out there that use
indirect_pci.c and have more than one host bridge? Anyone?
The CPC710 ports, K2 and Adirondack. Soon to be a large number of
boards with GT64620 since it seems to be the high-end system
controller of choice for embedded 7xx/74xx these days and
everybody wants Linux.
quoted
Another way to go would be to #ifdef your suggestion into indirect_pci.c
for my board only.
Which do you prefer?
Not the ifdef. :) Either make your own version of the indirect_pci
routines or add the field.
New field seems better than dupping 98% of indirect_pci, IMHO.
--
Matt Porter
MontaVista Software, Inc.
mporter@mvista.com
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/