On Wed, Aug 15, 2007 at 04:22:58PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:
> David Gibson wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2007 at 10:53:55PM +0400, Valentine Barshak wrote:
> >> Bootwrapper code for AMCC 440EPx Sequoia board.
> >> The DDR2 Denali controller support has been moved to
> >> arch/powerpc/boot/4xx.c
> >> The code also uses 440EP clocking fixups
> >> initially provided for 440EP Bamboo.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Valentine Barshak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > [snip]
> >> diff -ruN linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/cuboot-sequoia.c
> >> linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/cuboot-sequoia.c
> >> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/cuboot-sequoia.c 1970-01-01
> >> 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
> >> +++ linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/cuboot-sequoia.c 2007-08-14
> >> 17:25:37.000000000 +0400
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
> >> +/*
> >> + * Old U-boot compatibility for Sequoia
> >> + *
> >> + * Based on Ebony code by David Gibson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> + *
> >> + * Copyright 2007 David Gibson, IBM Corporatio.
> >> + * Based on cuboot-83xx.c, which is:
> >> + * Copyright (c) 2007 Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
> >> + *
> >> + * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
> >> + * under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> >> published
> >> + * by the Free Software Foundation.
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> +#include "ops.h"
> >> +#include "stdio.h"
> >> +#include "44x.h"
> >> +#include "cuboot.h"
> >> +
> >> +#define TARGET_4xx
> >> +#define TARGET_44x
> >
> > Surely you need to be more specific than that to select the correct
> > bd_t structure?
>
> Both TARGET_4xx and TARGET_44x should be selected for 44x. Otherwise I
> get wrong bd_t structure (wrong offsets to the eth0/eth1 MAC addresses).
> In the older arch/ppc code it used to be CONFIG_4xx and it was selected
> for CONFIG_40x and CONFIG_44x as well.
Yes, I'm not objecting to those TARGET macros, but I'd be very
surprised if you don't need more to really get the correct bd_t
structure.
[snip]
> >> diff -ruN linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/sequoia.c
> >> linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/sequoia.c
> >> --- linux-2.6.orig/arch/powerpc/boot/sequoia.c 1970-01-01
> >> 03:00:00.000000000 +0300
> >> +++ linux-2.6/arch/powerpc/boot/sequoia.c 2007-08-14 20:52:10.000000000
> >> +0400
> >
> > Unless another bootloader is expected to come along for Sequoia,
> > there's no reason to separate sequoia.c from cuboot-sequoia.c
>
> The previous version of Sequoia series had treeboot-sequoia.c, but I've
> removed it since only u-boot is used now.
> I'm not sure if there are any other bootloaders expected, but is it OK
> if I leave 2 separate files just in case? :)
Not unless you have a particular reason to expect another bootloader
will come along, which doesn't seem that likely to me. Or rather the
only likely future bootloader I'd see is newer versions of u-boot
which are device tree aware and handled separately anyway.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
