Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Jun 2, 2005, at 11:16 AM, Vitaly Bordug wrote: > >> Hi! >> This adds platform definition files for 82xx, while the platform_info is >> filled in board-specific .C file residing in platforms/82xx. Another >> disputable thing I did - I moved m8260_setup.c from the syslib/ up to >> platforms/82xx/. The file was slightly changed - added 2 prototypes >> from the cpm2_pic.h and removed the respective include. > > > Why the move of m8260_setup.c? Also, if this is required can we do > this as two different patches so we can see clearly any changes also > maded to m8260_setup.c > To my opinion platforms/82xx/m8260_setup.c is more relevant than in syslib. This is not a vital requirement though, I just want to know whether someone considers the same.
> mpc82xx_devices.c need a bit of work we need to at least cover the > same set of devices that 85xx does for the CPM: > SPI, I2C, USB, SCC1-4, FCC1-3, MCC1-2, SMC1-2 > OK. These stuff is not there yet because I wasn't sure what should come first - the platform stuff or driver that will utilize it. So, the correct way is to define PD first, than add drivers. > Additionally, the device name can not me FS_ENET_NAME, which assumes > that FCC is only used for enet. > OK > mpc82xx_sys.c: what is the .value field? is this the IMMR and if so > why bother shifting it? Because I want only partnum & masknum (RM, Fig. 4.26), remaining part is HRCW-dependent and can be written so couldn't be used as a device identification. > Also there are a whole bunch of variants that need to be captured > What exactly do you mean by this? Enumerate all the 82xx boards in mpc82xx_sys.c identifying them by immr, or? > Let's get clean versions of these two files before we worry about how > to handle FCC enet specific bits. Agreed. > > - kumar > > -- Sincerely, Vitaly
