David Gibson wrote: > 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.
Sorry, I don't quite follow. As far as I can tell the bd_t structure looks OK. Could you be more specific, please? What exactly do you think I need to get the correct bd_t? Thanks, Valentine. > > [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. > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
