On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 01:02:11PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
[...]

quoted

quoted

Anton> This is purposely. We also need support for 8610, and maybe
Anton> later we'll find another chip with the same unit. So, to not  
touch
Anton> the Kconfig for every new chip I just made it PPC32-wide.  
Other
Anton> option is to depend on FSL_SOC, but the driver really does not
Anton> depend on any fsl_soc stuff...

Adding another symbol to the Kconfig once it is verified that a new
SoC is compatible doesn't seem like a big deal - Figuring out all the
knobs we already have is, without having options for stuff that is
known to be irrelevant for the SoC.

The other 83xx specific drivers also depend on PPC_83xx.

Lets wait for Kumar's comments. We've already had a PPC_* mess
for the USB_EHCI_FSL symbol. What I've learned from it, is that
huge PPC_* list isn't perfect either.

I've alone glanced over this, but some initial comments are.. lets  
rename the thing to not be 83xx specific since 8610 uses it and I'm sure 
we'll have other parts that do similar things.

Ok, mpc8xxx_gpio.c would be fine? (Note that I'm agree with 8xxx, for
the file name).

With regards to the binding, lets make it generic like 'fsl,mpc8xxx- 
gpio", "fsl,CHIP-gpio" and than we can use cpm1/cpm2/pq1/pq2 as prefixes 
to distinguish and major differences.

But for compatible entry, shouldn't we use the last compatiblle entry
as a generic one? Then fsl,mpc8349-gpio is perfectly valid. I.e.,
for MPC8610 chips we will have:

"fsl,mpc8610-gpio", "fsl,mpc8349-gpio"

The last entry is most generic, and 8610 is registers-compatible with
the earlier (8349) chips. I thought that we tend to not do "made up"
8xxx things in the device tree... Am I wrong?


Thanks!

-- 
Anton Vorontsov
email: cbouatmailru@gmail.com
irc://irc.freenode.net/bd2