On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 10:42:13PM +0000, Adrian Cox wrote: > On Mon, 2004-03-15 at 20:38, Tom Rini wrote: > > > Actually, I was thinking that having an extra nop there on the !SMP && > > !(745x && MPC107) case wouldn't hurt much / at all, and having this > > feature bit be done unconditionally. But in cpu_setup_6xx.S we would > > compare the host bridge vendor / device ID to that of an mpc107. Or am > > I not thinking right, and doing that comparison at that time would be a > > bad idea? If so, I can live with it being an unconditional option, iff > > it's only required when MPC10X_STORE_GATHERING is enabled. > > The only problem I see is that in cpu_setup_6xx.S we can't yet do the > config cycles to tell that it is an MPC107. Luckily, all MPC10x boards > that I know of require an explicit platform selection option. > > I made my patch depend on CONFIG_MPC10X_BRIDGE, instead of > CONFIG_MPC10X_STORE_GATHERING, because I'm in the middle of porting > other MPC107 drivers from kernel 2.4 to 2.6.
I can live with that I think. Can you send that version and I'll do any additional cleanups (stylistically) ? -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
