On 6/30/08 11:37 PM, Stefan Roese wrote: > On Tuesday 01 July 2008, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: >>> Stefan and/or Ben: >>> >>> Any thoughts on this? >> >> I was hesitating a bit... do we really need to be -that- flexible ? >> >> That is, either that or use some new compatible entry to detect the new >> reg layout and whack that as a feature bit instead ? The advantage >> of the later is that we have the possibility of doing conditional >> compile for kernels that support only a given processor or set of >> processors (not that we have implemented much of it, but it just >> becomes Kconfig mumbo jumbo and a little bit of defines in the .h >> by turning the feature test into a compile-time 0 or 1. >> >> But this isn't a hot path and not a lot of code so maybe not worth >> bothering... however, it does add 3 properties to the DT and I know >> embedded people (especially Xilinx) are a bit concerned about the size >> of the DT when they try to fit it in block RAM... > > Yes, this was my feeling too. Not the size of the dtb but more the increased > complexity of the EMAC device node. I would prefer Ben's idea with this new > compatible entry too.
In terms of the device tree expression, you would both favor something akin to the following? - compatible = "ibm,emac-405exr", "ibm,emac4"; + compatible = "ibm,emac-405exr", "ibm,emac4", "ibm,emac4sync"; Regards, Grant _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
