Paul Mackerras wrote: > akuster writes: > > >>I object seriously. >> >> Some of what you have might be useful.:) OCP is not just for 4xx. In >>fact the name may need to change. I have been working on overhalling >>this interface and testing the ideas before having a review of the >>changes. I am on the hook to Paul and others to get this out in the >>open to discuss and am not ready. So if you could just relax and wait I >>would appriciate it. I would rather see the 2.5 kernel boot on a few >>4xx boards >> > > Two points: > > - Integrating the OCP stuff into the unified device model (driverfs > etc.) in 2.5 is essential.
completely agree > > - I really want to have some open discussions about ideas, structures > etc. for OCP support *before* you have everything fully worked out. :) > The discussions will start soon ;) I never have a complete implimentation done before I present but I do tinker with code and validate my hypothisis to weed out the lame stuff. I am sure you would rather see a bit more meat to my ideas than if my only statement was one such are your #1 point above. :) You will just need to wait even though my employer is gracious and allows me to work in the community during work hours. > Regards, > Paul. Armin ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
