Re: MPC5200 Patches

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:34:57AM +0100, Wolfgang Denk wrote:

[snip]

* Some files/directories have been renamed into 5xxx, others in
  m5xxx. The same applies to the CONFIG_ options: Maybe we can make
  this a bit more consistent?

  Given the fact that we use CONFIG_6xx, CONFIG_40x, CONFIG_44x,
  CONFIG_8xx, ... we should probably use CONFIG_5xxx instead of
  CONFIG_M5XXX ?

Can I suggest breaking the trend slightly based on comments people have
made about 2.5/2.6?  Let's call it CONFIG_PPC_5xxx (and someday fix all
of the others).

  We have drivers/i2c/i2c-algo-8xx.c, so maybe we should have
  i2c-algo-5xxx.c instead of i2c-algo-m5xxx.c ?

  There is include/linux/i2c-algo-8xx.h - how about i2c-algo-5xxx.h
  instead of i2c-algo-m5xxx.h ?

As others have mentioned, this is too generic, and should someone have
time, 8xx should be renamed m8xx.

  We have include/asm-ppc/mpc8xx.h and mpc8260.h and ibm4xx.h - maybe
  we should use mpc5xxx.h instead of m5xxx.h ?

Sounds like a good idea.

* Does it make sense to add a "Board uses UBoot" config option to
  individual boards? [BTW: the name is "U-Boot".] If we do something
  like this (which I'd appreciate) we should do it right - there
  might be some other boards that use this, too.

My question is, is it possible to support both U-Boot and $(VENDOR
FIRMWARE) in the same build?  If possible I'd like to avoid adding a
question for any type of firmware or a define_bool based on board
selection.  I think we allow for this on Sandpoints, so...

--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/

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