On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 05:33:41PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote: > > Tom Rini wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 19, 2002 at 05:18:04PM +0200, Steven Scholz wrote: > > > > > > Tom Rini wrote: > > > > > > > I'm sort-of supprised it works. > > > I told you, it's not that much to do... > > > :-) > > > > > > > Isn't: > > > > ((uint)0x....) > > > > in assembly bad? > > > > > > Hmm. Don't know. Maybe. But these are just DEFINES! So what should that > > > be bad? > > > > Oh yeah, right.. Hmm, it probably won't break anything then.. > > > > > > I think we need to have all of these defines enclosed with the > > > > __ASSEMBLY__ test, but I can go fix that. > > > > > > At least spd8xx.h and tqm8xx.h don't have any #ifndef __ASSEMBLY__ at > > > all!? > > > > (... waking up ...) Because the only C bits they had are now in > > <asm/ppcboot.h> which does the test right. > > > > All right then. I can't do more testing due to the lack of hardware. > Maybe Wolfgang could spend a little of his precious time since he claims > to have a zoo of boards... :o) > (Especially TQM8xxL, FPS850L, SM850) > > So when can I "bk pull" these changes then, Tom?
Shortly after I see if 2.5.23 boots/compiles for classic PPC :) -- Tom Rini (TR1265) http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
