# Re: \[PATCH\] powerpc: Add support for OpenBlockS 600

- From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt \<benh@kernel.crashing.org\>
- Date: 2011-12-02 08:49:18 
- List: linuxppc-dev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2011/12/9467436
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2011/12/9467430/t.md

```text
On Thu, 2011-12-01 at 22:40 -0800, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> [ref] wrote:
> 
> >  arch/powerpc/boot/dts/obs600.dts           |  314 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 
> It'd be nice to have dtsi files for the SoCs, there's a lot of boiler
> plate in there. That shouldn't hold up this specific patch though.

Right definitely. One thing that I wonder tho (I haven't looked at the
dtsi stuff specifically), can it "remove" a node ?

Ie. The 405EX dtsi will probably expose the PCIe bridges in that
specific case, but I want them out as they aren't wired and trying to
use them causes a hang on this board.

Another approach is to stick in a disabled property and make sure the
ppc4xx_pci code checks it.

> >  arch/powerpc/boot/wrapper                  |   22 ++-
> >  arch/powerpc/configs/40x/obs600_defconfig  |   83 ++++++++
> 
> A new single-board defconfig? On arm that is a strong NACK, I'd say
> it's a bad idea on powerpc as well.

The defconfigs are just there for the user sake, I find them handy
myself. I have no objection (as maintainer) to having them since
nowadays they are really small and can be handy for embedded systems
(ie, on a tiny 405 based machine you really want to cut out the bloat
you don't need).

As long as the board -can- be built as part of a combo that is.

So as maintainer, I think I'll keep applying a different policy than ARM
in that area ;-)

Cheers,
Ben.
```