On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote: > On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 18:32, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 06:13:35PM +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote: > > > this patch renames platform_init to m8xx_init in m8xx_setup.c and adds > > > new weak platform_init, which can be overridden by boards to allow them > > > to e.g. register platform_devices like redwood5.c does for 40x. > > > > First, I don't see the redwood5 example you're talking about. > > http://ppc.bkbits.net:8080/linuxppc-2.5/anno/arch/ppc/platforms/4xx/redwood5.c > at 1.11?nav=index.html
Ah, I follow you now. This too, seems awkward to me. I'm making myself a note to talk with Matt Porter when I see him tomorrow about this. > > Second, this takes us in the direction of 82xx. Until the 82xx > > abstractions get flushed out a bit more, I remain unconvinced that > > they're really the right way to go (perhaps hooking the other direction > > would work better, e.g. platform_init() calls board_init(), with a weak > > version provided, and some functions forced to be provided by board.c, > > such as m8xx_map_io). > > I chose this way because it seemed to be a simple way to port the dbox2 > board to 2.6 using the new device API. Is there another 8xx board which > uses the device API for its onboard peripherials and can be used as a > reference? Can I get my devices registered without modifying > platform_init, or shall I send a patch with the board_init() you > mentioned? See my board.c attached. There currently isn't a reference platform for what you speak of. My preference would be to see what I described given a shot to see if it looks better or worse (and it better, or worse, in the flow of things). But, tomorrow I leave for OLS, so if I don't reply, well, that's my excuse. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
