On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote:

On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 18:32, Tom Rini wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:13:35PM +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote:

quoted

this patch renames platform_init to m8xx_init in m8xx_setup.c and adds
new weak platform_init, which can be overridden by boards to allow them
to e.g. register platform_devices like redwood5.c does for 40x.

First, I don't see the redwood5 example you're talking about.

http://ppc.bkbits.net:8080/linuxppc-2.5/anno/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/redwood5.c@1.11?nav=index.html

Ah, I follow you now.  This too, seems awkward to me.  I'm making myself
a note to talk with Matt Porter when I see him tomorrow about this.

quoted

Second, this takes us in the direction of 82xx.  Until the 82xx
abstractions get flushed out a bit more, I remain unconvinced that
they're really the right way to go (perhaps hooking the other direction
would work better, e.g. platform_init() calls board_init(), with a weak
version provided, and some functions forced to be provided by board.c,
such as m8xx_map_io).

I chose this way because it seemed to be a simple way to port the dbox2
board to 2.6 using the new device API. Is there another 8xx board which
uses the device API for its onboard peripherials and can be used as a
reference? Can I get my devices registered without modifying
platform_init, or shall I send a patch with the board_init() you
mentioned? See my board.c attached.

There currently isn't a reference platform for what you speak of.  My
preference would be to see what I described given a shot to see if it
looks better or worse (and it better, or worse, in the flow of things).
But, tomorrow I leave for OLS, so if I don't reply, well, that's my
excuse.

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

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