Re: EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs
From: Armin <hidden>
Date: 2002-04-02 14:42:07
Dan Malek wrote:
If you are using the 4xx stuff as an example, I don't really like the
way that is being done, but I'm severely outnumbered in that battle so
I had to retreat and work somewhere else (like MIPS :-). I still
prefer to wait and see how unmanagable it gets before we start reworking
everything. Again, I don't see how using a bootloader to provide
information and adding more software complexity to drivers solves this
problem. If you can't make it work with #define constants and #ifdef
code sections, how will changing a #define with a variable name and
an #ifdef with an if () {} make it eaiser?What battle would that be?? you're copied on all my changes to 4xx and if you have a problem with it , you should say so:)
quoted
I have this dream that one day we will get to the point where adding support for a new board only involves adding files to the kernel tree, with no changes to existing files needed.
4xx you need 1 config , board.c, board.h and add board.h to ibm4xx.h at a minimum. The 4xx drivers when conversion to ocp is completed will make it possible:) Think of ocp as a static or manual pci driver
-- Dan
armin ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/