On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 09:46:26AM +0200, "David M?ller (ELSOFT AG)" wrote:
>
> David Gibson wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:37:20AM +0200, "David M?ller (ELSOFT AG)" wrote:
> >
> [stuff deleted]
> >>
> >>In your proposed patch, i'm missing a way to install a board specify
> >>mapping either by using special constants, callback functions to board
> >>specific code, .... AFAICS all boards are forced to use the same mapping.
> >
> >
> >That's right. Is there a reason for boards to have different
> >mappings? I can well believe that there is, but the current tree
> >doesn't show it - all the boards (in the tree) that have PCI appear to
> >do the same initialisation of the windows. It doesn't seem worthwhile
> >to create board specific PCI initialisation hooks until we have a
> >board that needs it.
>
> Not all boards using LinuxPPC are in the offical tree (yet). I know at
> least two boards which are using a "non-standard" PCI mapping.
Fair enough. I'm just trying to come up with the simplest approach
that still provides the flexibility we need. Based on the evidence
immediately available, what I posted seemed like it. How about you
tell me something about the non-standard PCI mappings, so I can come
up with something better.
--
David Gibson | For every complex problem there is a
david at gibson.dropbear.id.au | solution which is simple, neat and
| wrong.
http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
