On Mon, 2004-06-14 at 18:05, Mark A. Greer wrote: > That's great that you're OCP-ifying the mpc10x code! My only comment is > thatI don't like hardcoding the position of an entry in the OCP (e.g., > core_ocp[0].vedor/paddr). I don't think its safe to assume that any > particular piece of code will always know all of the entries in the OCP > and therefore what an entry's position will be. You can use > 'ocp_for_each_device()' and a routine that checks for the fields that > you want to accomplish the same thing.
I'll try to do a new version of the patch at the end of the week. Would it work to have an empty core_ocp[] array, and then call ocp_add_one_device() to insert the entries? That would deal with these issues, as the code would look like: mpc10x_i2c_ocp.paddr = phys_eumb_base + MPC10X_EUMB_I2C_OFFSET; ocp_add_one_device(&mpc10x_i2c_ocp); Then the MPC106 path would simply not add any entries, rather than having to go through and mark them as invalid. - Adrian Cox Humboldt Solutions Ltd. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
