On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 01:00:47PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >> On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:03:48AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> --- >>>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8544ds.dts | 88 ++++------ >>>> arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8641_hpcn.dts | 114 +++---------- >>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/Kconfig | 1 + >>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/mpc8544_ds.c | 214 >>>> ++---------------------- >>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/86xx/Kconfig | 1 + >>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/86xx/mpc86xx_hpcn.c | 224 >>>> ++----------------------- >>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig | 8 + >>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/Makefile | 3 + >>>> arch/powerpc/platforms/fsl_uli1575.c | 255 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 9 files changed, 363 insertions(+), 545 deletions(-) >>>> create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/platforms/fsl_uli1575.c >>>> >>> >>> Since when do we add code directly under powerpc/platforms? Isn't >>> that >>> what we have sysdev for? >>> >>> I know this is already picked up, but I just noticed it when >>> looking at >>> Kumar's 8572 patch. :-( >> >> I put it in platforms since it was related to the boards not the >> chips. We >> can go around about what sysdev actual means, but I'm using the >> assumption >> that its for processor & bridges (for discrete processors 10x, >> mv640x0, >> etc). Things that are board specific like the ULI I'm putting under >> platforms/ > > Hmm, I don't like the pollution of that directory myself, > especially since > we've been able to keep it clean up until now.
What's it matter if we have files under platforms/ Would you feel better if it was in platforms/common/ or platforms/fsl > Maybe it would make more sense for you guys to slice the platforms > differently, and have a common platform for the eval boards you have > with ULi on them instead of grouping it by core used by the processor > on the board. > > (In other words, move 86xx over under 85xx, since there wouldn't be > much > left over anyway). Moving 86xx (classic 74xx core) under 85xx (book e500 core) makes even less sense to me. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
