On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 12:48:54AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 30, 2007 at 10:55:59AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
> > Am I correct in thinking that it's basically an arch/ppc versus
> > arch/powerpc thing. In which case couldn't you use CONFIG_PPC_MERGE
> > instead?
>
> The idea was to allow boards to be converted incrementally, as I don't
> have access to test 100% of the boards that use the CPM code.
Hrm. Right. This is still problematical, because what happens if you
have both old-binding and new-binding boards configured simultaneously?
> > > It has a phandle to the phy node... if you mean the mdio bus node, why?
> >
> > Well, I'm just working of the example of 4xx EMAC. The way it does
> > mdio, it wants a handle on the mdio bus to perform various operations
> > there as well on the phy to tell it how to address them. fsl-enet may
> > do things differently and have no particular need for such a handle.
>
> Even if it did need such a handle, couldn't it just look at the phy
> node's parent?
Well, yes, but it's just a bit more fiddling. For the purposes of
emac, it seemed simpler to supply pass the mdio phandle as well.
--
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
