On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 11:21:28AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Tom Rini wrote: > > >On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 06:26:52PM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > > > >> > >> You asked me to look at doing the following.? I just want to make > >sure > >> this is what we want to do (and call it).? I'm a little concerned > >that > >> 'chip' is not necessary the right name in light of TSI10x and MV64x60 > >> being described by ppc_sys in the future. > > > >"chip" or "chip(set)" or anything else is fine with me (I'm horrible at > > names).? But I don't like: > > > >> +#if defined (CONFIG_85xx) || defined (CONFIG_83xx) > >> +???? if (cur_ppc_sys_spec->ppc_sys_name) > >> +???? ??????? seq_printf(m, "chip\t\t: %s\n", > >cur_ppc_sys_spec->ppc_sys_name); > >> +#endif > > > >ifdef'ing this.? If the field is set, we should print it. > > The only reason this is ifdef'd is that cur_ppc_sys_spec does not > always exist on all platforms built.
Oh boy, I sense an <asm-ppc/serial.h> in the making. Please tell me it's at least not possible that someone could stick an 85xx and an MV64x60 together. So we want the enum there to do sanity checking, right? -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
