Dan Malek wrote: > > David Updegraff wrote: > >> ... Might we be able to limit the proliferation of submodel >> in the PPC 4xx world with the addition of my proposed MINIMAL405 >> submodel and then let vendors write drivers instead of kernels? > > > The 8xx and 8260 are almost like this. What you will discover over > time is a driver you write is 99% of what someone else wants. In your > proposal, you would end up with a whole new driver that is almost identical > to another, which isn't practical to maintain. Just follow the convention
> of adding a board descriptor for your platform. If it is truly identical > to another, then the platforms can share the same files and this knowledge > is implicit in the configuration. Now, if the current configurations make > assumptions about platforms that use a 405GP (and it shouldn't), that is > what needs to change. I'm happy with that approach too: so we'd have a new board description of a MINIMAL405. Or.. with some minor surgery to the WALNUT description, I could fit in there (additional CONFIG_* things maybe to adjust presence of peripherals and presumption of PPCBOOT vs. IBM-BIOS..). It boils down to almost same thing: a board defn. that can be configured down to a peripheral-less 405gp. I has assumed that my chances of lobbying for a "new" board description might be a bit better than lobbying for a bunch of changes to the WALNUT or EP405. Though either of those would work fine if they just consistently obeyed CONFIG_PCI, CONFIG_RTC, CONFIG_NVRAM, CONFIG_VT, and we had a mechaninsm for ppcboot cognizance of board_t. Infact, it looks to me like they could be merged in that case.. Please advise. -- Dave Updegraff / dave at cray.com / 218-525-1154 ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
