On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 04:22:58PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:

David Gibson wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 10:53:55PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:

quoted

Bootwrapper code for AMCC 440EPx Sequoia board.
The DDR2 Denali controller support has been moved to
 arch/powerpc/boot/4xx.c
The code also uses 440EP clocking fixups
initially provided for 440EP Bamboo.

Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak <redacted>

[snip]

quoted

diff -ruN linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/cuboot-sequoia.c linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/cuboot-sequoia.c

--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/cuboot-sequoia.c	1970-01-01 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
+++ linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/cuboot-sequoia.c	2007-08-14 17:25:37.000000000 +0400

@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+/*
+ * Old U-boot compatibility for Sequoia
+ *
+ * Based on Ebony code by David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
+ *
+ * Copyright 2007 David Gibson, IBM Corporatio.
+ *   Based on cuboot-83xx.c, which is:
+ * Copyright (c) 2007 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
+ * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as published
+ * by the Free Software Foundation.
+ */
+
+#include "ops.h"
+#include "stdio.h"
+#include "44x.h"
+#include "cuboot.h"
+
+#define TARGET_4xx
+#define TARGET_44x

Surely you need to be more specific than that to select the correct
bd_t structure?

Both TARGET_4xx and TARGET_44x should be selected for 44x. Otherwise I 
get wrong bd_t structure (wrong offsets to the eth0/eth1 MAC addresses). 
In the older arch/ppc code it used to be CONFIG_4xx and it was selected 
for CONFIG_40x and CONFIG_44x as well.

Yes, I'm not objecting to those TARGET macros, but I'd be very
surprised if you don't need more to really get the correct bd_t
structure.

[snip]

quoted

quoted

diff -ruN linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/sequoia.c linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/sequoia.c

--- linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/sequoia.c	1970-01-01 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
+++ linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/sequoia.c	2007-08-14 20:52:10.000000000 +0400

Unless another bootloader is expected to come along for Sequoia,
there's no reason to separate sequoia.c from cuboot-sequoia.c

The previous version of Sequoia series had treeboot-sequoia.c, but I've 
removed it since only u-boot is used now.
I'm not sure if there are any other bootloaders expected, but is it OK 
if I leave 2 separate files just in case? :)

Not unless you have a particular reason to expect another bootloader
will come along, which doesn't seem that likely to me.  Or rather the
only likely future bootloader I'd see is newer versions of u-boot
which are device tree aware and handled separately anyway.

-- 
David Gibson			| I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au	| minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
				| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson