Dan Malek [off-list ref] wrote:
So, I don't see the problem. A default is specified and you can change it,
just like lots of other configurations.
The problem is that there is a
define_int CONFIG_SERIAL_CONSOLE_BAUD 115200
line in arch/ppc/config.in for "$CONFIG_EV64260" = "y" but not for any other
almost-non-embedded-standard-computer 6xx/7xx/74xx board, which is
discriminatory and undemocratic.
Having "$CONFIG_GT64260" = "y" imply support for CONFIG_SERIAL_TEXT_DEBUG is
also discriminatory and undemocratic. Should we also imply the same then for
"$CONFIG_CPC700" = "y" -o "$CONFIG_CPC710" = "y" -o "$CONFIG_UNINORTH" = "y",
etc?
I mean I don't mind if defaults are changed globally, it's just the
discriminatory treatment of GT-64260 that I violently object to. Oh, and having
a separate BK tree and mailing list for it too isn't something I'm fond of.
MS
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
On Sun, Mar 17, 2002 at 12:10:43PM -0800, Michael Sokolov wrote:
Dan Malek [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
So, I don't see the problem. A default is specified and you can change it,
just like lots of other configurations.
The problem is that there is a
define_int CONFIG_SERIAL_CONSOLE_BAUD 115200
The other problem is you're looking at the wrong tree for this, which
I'll get into further down. But in the galileo tree, it's:
if [ "$CONFIG_MOT_MVP" = "y" ]; then
define_bool CONFIG_GT64260 y
define_int CONFIG_SERIAL_CONSOLE_BAUD 115200
fi
...
if [ "$CONFIG_USE_PPCBOOT" != "y" ]; then
int 'Serial Console Baudrate' CONFIG_SERIAL_CONSOLE_BAUD 115200
fi
So the MVP uses 115200, and possibly even DINK does, and anyone else
gets to pick or assumes 9600.
Having "$CONFIG_GT64260" = "y" imply support for CONFIG_SERIAL_TEXT_DEBUG is
also discriminatory and undemocratic. Should we also imply the same then for
"$CONFIG_CPC700" = "y" -o "$CONFIG_CPC710" = "y" -o "$CONFIG_UNINORTH" = "y",
etc?
No, because right now the CPC700 and CPC710 systems don't know how to
setup a serial port for early debugging via ppc_md.progress().
I mean I don't mind if defaults are changed globally, it's just the
discriminatory treatment of GT-64260 that I violently object to.
Can you be more specific?
Oh, and having
a separate BK tree and mailing list for it too isn't something I'm fond of.
Why? The GT-64260 stuff is under heavy development, and between
gt-64260 problems and board problems (and possible processor issues)
having a seperate tree in which to try and hammer things out between the
folks working on it seems useful.
--
Tom Rini (TR1265)
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/