Adrian Cox wrote: >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. > > FWIW, that's fine with me.
Mark ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
