On Fri, Jul 23, 2004 at 03:59:53PM +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote: > Am Mo, den 19.07.2004 schrieb Tom Rini um 20:20: > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2004 at 07:34:28PM +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2004-07-19 at 18:32, Tom Rini wrote: > > > > 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). > > How about this patch?
Yes, I think that's about it. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
