On Mar 21, 2005, at 12:05 PM, Tom Rini wrote: > 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?
It is not possible that this could happen, in the sense that you are using the MV64x60 as a chipset, not a PCI device or something bizarre. - kumar
