On Jun 3, 2005, at 10:21 AM, Vitaly Bordug wrote: > 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.
Let's leave it where it is for now. >> 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. Ok, but is there any need to shift it? Just setup the mask up correctly. >> 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? Not boards, but chips. Yes, enumerating the various IMMRs, I will ask one of our engineers to help with this. - kumar
