Dan Malek wrote: > > On May 26, 2004, at 8:05 AM, Pantelis Antoniou wrote: > >> Awaiting comments. > > > The interrupt stuff in patch 1 was wrong when it was done in 2.4 > and I'm disappointed to see it again in 2.6. Unfortunately, I > don't have time to fix it now, but it will get done properly when I > implement the similar thing for the 8560.
Well, I had to do something. request_8xxirq & friends are unusable. > > In patch 4, get rid of that #if 0 around the machine check exception. > If the code works, just check it in. We can't define update_mmu_cache > as a null function. It performs a necessary function of cache > management. We may just be lucky because the caches on the 8xx > are small, but this is a subtle bug waiting to happen. OK for the #if 0. I don't know what update_mmu_cache really does that screws up so bad. Didn't really had to look into the matter. > > Why did you need to include patch 5 and 6? These should have > been done and checked into the trees long ago. For completeness. So that with the patches in it would at least compile. > > In patch 8, why is the 8xx FEC driver dependent upon NETTA and > NETPHONE? All 8xx boards should use this driver, and it would have > been nice if you would have done board specific files for all other > 8xx boards that are supported, even if they couldn't be tested. The > price of making such major changes that affect everyone :-) Well, as I explained to Tom, that was intentional :). How many of the boards in the kernel are working, or have someone working on them? IMHO it's time to clean up the mess a bit. > > I did not check these in. Tom can you do so and make sure other > 8xx boards will at least compile? I'll fix up the stuff I don't like > later :-) > > Thanks. > > -- Dan > Regards Pantelis ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
