How much of each of the drivers in arch/ppc/8260_io/ can be reused
for the 8250? Is the 8250 CPM interface backward compatible
with the 8260 CPM interface? Or will everything have to be written
from the ground up?
We have tested ethernet (fcc_enet.c), serial port (uart.c) from linux 2.4.19
and it works fine.
Sylvain
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
We have tested ethernet (fcc_enet.c), serial port (uart.c) from
linux 2.4.19
and it works fine.
Considering that Motorola is now using the CPM in multiple processors, including DSPs, would it make sense to breakout the support from the 8260 implementation and make it an independent option like PCI?
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
Allen Curtis wrote:
Considering that Motorola is now using the CPM in multiple processors, including DSPs, would it make sense to breakout the support from the 8260 implementation and make it an independent option like PCI?
It would be reasonable, but I don't want to start that until we have another
processor port in the works that also requires it. Simply changing all of
this for the sake of doing so with grand plans how it can be used anywhere
isn't a useful way to use our resources. I particularly don't like change
for the sake of change, because it makes it difficult for us that rely
on things to work, and I really want to avoid a mess like 4xx OCP :-).
Thanks.
-- Dan
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/