Re: [PATCH 00/10] Updated ML300 & ML403 patches

I don't understand what you mean.  It sounds like your suggesting I do 
exactly opposite what you're arguing; hand modify one of the 
xparameters_*.h files.  Are you saying that edk can't generate Linux 
redefines for the ml403 at the moment? 

Yes, it can. It looks they are not present in the xparameters_ml403.h 
that you submitted as part of your patch. I'll send you the 
automatically generated file in a seperate email.

I do *not* think I should replace the edk-generated 
xparameters_ml403.h with a hacked xparameters_ml300.h file.  I'd 
rather use the generated _ml403 file and change the infrastructure 
when the Linux redefines are ready. 

See above. BTW, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the process in 
EDK. Let me know if I can help you step through it.

quoted

That's not a recommended flow. It's very easy to create an EDK design 
with the proper settings and since it is very likely that things 
change during the design process of the FPGA the small investment 
into making the proper settings in the tool will save a lot of time 
in the end.

I understand that it's not *recommended*; I'm just saying it's not 
always *reality*  :p 

Yeah, that's true for user projects. However, I hope that we can get the 
default included in the Linux 2.6 kernel right.

Yes; but I already said that I'll change the patch to use the Xilinx 
redefines.  My argument is simply that *if* changes are required, 
there is a way for the user to do it.  In the normal (recommended) 
case; nothing will need to be done.  (think Larry Wall's quote: "easy 
things easy; hard things possible)

When it is needed; the fixups will be in xparameters.h; not 
xparameters_*.h; and they'll be for a specific port.  The fixups will 
only need to be done once per project (most likely). 

I'm not sure that I follow your argument here.

My point is that the Linux redefines are useful to more than just 
Linux ports.  Don't you think standalone apps could also benefit from 
a sane-set of defines for peripherals?  In other words; shouldn't the 
Linux redefines be always available (and called something more generic)? 

I see what you mean and I tend to agree.

okay, I'll change the patch to use those names. 

Great. Thanks.


- Peter