On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 01:08:31AM -0600, Kumar Gala wrote: > >Hi Kumar, > > > >I dont really know the policy for driver placement, but it seems that > >it works on a case by case basis. > > > >The files in arch/ppc/8xx_io/ (which is what I think you refer to as > >candidates for drivers/), are: > > We have been slowly working on moving drivers out of arch/ppc and > into drivers/ so that subsystem maintainers could get proper review > of them. > > >1) commproc.c > >Basic API for dpram access. Core code. > > > >2) micropatch.c > >microcode update code/data. Core code. > > Well #1 & #2 aren't what I would call drivers at all. I would > consider them syslib/ candidates. Hopefully, someone will
Move them there? Yeah... We can add that to the 8xx TODO list if its interesting. > >3) cs4218.h > >4) cs4218_tdm.c > > > >cs4218 does not compile at the moment due to syntatical problems, > >I've fixed them up and the driver compiles, but I don't know > >if it works (patch attached). > > > >I would not be surprised if the driver has been broken since > >long time ago. > > > >Does anyone have hardware to test it? Dan? > > > >Otherwise we should remove it from the tree, since its unmaintained > >and unused. > > If its still good, I would guessing /drivers/audio or snd, but > neither seem to exist. I wondering where sound card drivers live > these days. snd/ I think... Someone needs to test the driver. I think we should just fixup the syntactical problems and mark it as BROKEN until someone (Dan?) confirms it works. > >5) enet.c > >6) fec.c > > > >The ENET/FEC network drivers are obseleted by fs_enet. > > > >However there are some PHY descriptions in fec.c which are missing > >from > >fs_enet - we'd better make sure to have them all in the new driver > >before removing the old one. > > Agreed. > > >Aris, would you mind looking into this? > > > >Once we have that we can set a deadline at Documentation/feature- > >removal.txt > >if desired. > > > >Other than those there are no 8xx drivers in arch/ppc/ AFAIK. > > > ><cs42.patch> > > Good deal. Are we really removing anything (except maybe cs4218)? FEC certainly and cs4218 seems like a candidate. Thanks for your comments!
