On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:59:32AM +1000, Paul Mackerras wrote: > > Mark A. Greer writes: > > > Wait, I can't b/c then *everyone* will have this subtraction happen and > > everyone but me would be broken. > > With a separate field, I don't mess up other board ports. > > Well, how many other boards are there out there that use > indirect_pci.c and have more than one host bridge? Anyone?
The CPC710 ports, K2 and Adirondack. Soon to be a large number of boards with GT64620 since it seems to be the high-end system controller of choice for embedded 7xx/74xx these days and everybody wants Linux. > > Another way to go would be to #ifdef your suggestion into indirect_pci.c > > for my board only. > > Which do you prefer? > > Not the ifdef. :) Either make your own version of the indirect_pci > routines or add the field. New field seems better than dupping 98% of indirect_pci, IMHO. -- Matt Porter MontaVista Software, Inc. mporter at mvista.com ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
