On Dec 12, 2006, at 4:24 PM, Kim Phillips wrote:

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:06:41 -0600
Kumar Gala [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

I do prefer the middle ground approach he (and you) proposed to
have an
"mpc83xx_generic" in the compatible property and match on that, but
I'm
not 100% certain we are really there yet and I would have been a bit
more comfortable limiting that to known fsl boards. But you are the
guys
to maintain those things, so do as you like there.

I'm against the idea of "mpc83xx_generic" if they want to introduce a
"mpc83xx_freescale" or "mpc83xx_fsl_generic" I'm fine with that, but
there is not such thing as a "mpc83xx_generic".

I took a look at the TQM8349 code, and it looks like it will be  
identical in the platform code space.  That would subtract the  
'fsl' part from the equation.  How about 'mpc83xx_eval'?  btw, this  
would be taking us back to the original patch, which I like since I  
personally don't want to see one file per eval board (I could ifdef  
protect platforms in machdefs.c if that works for you).

What's the issue with a file per board if all it has is the ppc_md/ 
define_machine() in it.  Someone explain to me why this is a bad thing?

- k