On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 09:07:05AM -0700, Mark Pilon wrote: > > some issues: > - mem mapped and DCRs have moved around, been added or taken away when > going from the 405gp to pm. > > - functional differneces exist between the parts as well: one example > being the GP has 5 ethernet interrupts mapped into the UIC, while > the PM they're all rolled into 1 int. > > - there may be silicon errata which affect one processor which have > been worked out of another. > > - and the cards are different as well ... > > for ease of replicating this port when the next kernel comes along, > I came down on the side of really isolating everything I'm adding: > 1bm405pm.h instead of ibm405gp.h,
That's exactly how it should go too. And did you add in a CONFIG_405PM? 405GP things _should_ be CONFIG_405GP'ed. If not please post a patch for them. > my own board and architecture setup funcs in their own module ... > my own head_ppc405pm.S .... Were these actually needed? > my 0.0002: an approach which isolates chip-specific funcs in a > chip-specific module, same for board-specific. this adds maintenance > as the flavors for a given processor grow. maybe there's a more clever > way to do this w/o globbing up a few files w/ many ifdefs. Which is sort-of where things are going, but haven't yet. The sooner you post your port the sooner I can think about things too and see what needs to be seperated out more. -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
