On Fri, Sep 16, 2005 at 01:06:16PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote: > Add U-Boot support to AMCC PPC405 eval boards (bubinga, sycamore and walnut) > and cleanup PPC440 eval boards (bamboo, ebony, luan and ocotea) to better > support U-Boot as bootloader.
In general, 44x pieces look OK, but 40x aren't. Notice, that we don't have any #ifdef CONFIG_UBOOT in 44x sources. Let's not add them for 40x, try to replicate the same boot-wrapper approach as Matt used for 44x. [snip] > diff --git a/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/Kconfig b/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/Kconfig > --- a/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/Kconfig > +++ b/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/Kconfig > @@ -212,10 +212,18 @@ config EMBEDDEDBOOT > depends on EP405 || XILINX_ML300 > default y > > -config IBM_OPENBIOS > - bool > +choice > + prompt "Bootloader support" > depends on ASH || BUBINGA || REDWOOD_5 || REDWOOD_6 || SYCAMORE || > WALNUT > - default y > + default IBM_OPENBIOS > + > +config IBM_OPENBIOS > + bool "IBM OpenBIOS" > + > +config UBOOT > + bool "U-Boot" > + > +endchoice Do we really need this? U-Boot build is different from OpenBIOS already (we just use vmlinux without any boot-wrapper) and is selected by different make target. [snip] > --- a/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/bubinga.c > +++ b/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/bubinga.c > @@ -89,7 +89,11 @@ bubinga_early_serial_map(void) > * by 16. > */ > uart_div = (mfdcr(DCRN_CPC0_UCR_BASE) & DCRN_CPC0_UCR_U0DIV); > +#ifdef CONFIG_UBOOT > + uart_clock = __res.bi_procfreq / uart_div; > +#else > uart_clock = __res.bi_pllouta_freq / uart_div; > +#endif Why not just rename this field and skip this ugly ifdefing? -- Eugene
