Re: Changes to "The plan"

4 messages, 4 authors, 2002-07-31 · open the first message on its own page

Re: Changes to "The plan"

From: Ralph Blach <hidden>
Date: 2002-07-30 12:02:42

Armin

It has always been my contention the the 4xx should be organized in the
following structure
Core
Chip
board

This would tree would then reflect the reallity of chip design methodology.
the 405 now has many variants
so it would be
405 Core
   Chip
      405CR
      405GP
      Board
                 Walnut
                  .
                  .
                  .
      NPE405L
       .
       .
       .


Chip


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Changes to "The plan"

From: Paul Mackerras <hidden>
Date: 2002-07-31 01:31:01

Ralph Blach writes:
It has always been my contention the the 4xx should be organized in the
following structure
Core
Chip
board

This would tree would then reflect the reallity of chip design methodology.
the 405 now has many variants
so it would be
405 Core
   Chip
      405CR
      405GP
      Board
                 Walnut
Wouldn't that make it more difficult to take advantage of the fact
that (for instance) the MAL and ENET are virtually identical on the
405GP and the 440GP?

Paul.

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Changes to "The plan"

From: David Gibson <hidden>
Date: 2002-07-31 01:39:58

On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 08:02:42AM -0400, Ralph Blach wrote:
Armin

It has always been my contention the the 4xx should be organized in the
following structure
Core
Chip
board

This would tree would then reflect the reallity of chip design methodology.
the 405 now has many variants
so it would be
405 Core
   Chip
      405CR
      405GP
      Board
                 Walnut
                  .
                  .
                  .
      NPE405L
       .
       .
       .
It's not clear to me what you're proposing.  Are you talking about the
layout of the Config.in options, the layout of the .c files in various
directories or the call structure of the platform initialization code?

--
David Gibson			| For every complex problem there is a
david@gibson.dropbear.id.au	| solution which is simple, neat and
				| wrong.
http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson

** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Changes to "The plan"

From: akuster <hidden>
Date: 2002-07-31 04:00:07

David Gibson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 08:02:42AM -0400, Ralph Blach wrote:
quoted
Armin

It has always been my contention the the 4xx should be organized in the
following structure
Core
Chip
board

This would tree would then reflect the reallity of chip design methodology.
the 405 now has many variants
so it would be
405 Core
  Chip
     405CR
     405GP
     Board
                Walnut
                 .
                 .
                 .
     NPE405L
      .
      .
      .
It's not clear to me what you're proposing.  Are you talking about the
layout of the Config.in options, the layout of the .c files in various
directories or the call structure of the platform initialization code?
Well, the lastest 2.5 model working after having some local discusions is:

board files are in /platforms/4xx such as walnut.*, ebony.*

implimentation files are in /kernel/4xx such as ibm405gp.*, ibm44gp.*,
ppc4xx_* & ppc405_*, I guess head should go there too.

the core files like ibm4xx, ibm405.h & ibm440.h are in include/asm-ppc
as well as ibm_ocp.h

Things like ocp.c and ocp_proc will most likely end up in drivers/ocp
since ocp can support more than just ppc.

comments
armin


** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help