On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Becky Bruce wrote: > > On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Kumar Gala wrote: > >> >> 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/ >> > > The original intent of platforms as we (Kumar included) laid it out > was that it *only* contain platform subdirs. This makes it easy to > poke around in platforms, and it makes reading the "ls" of that > directory much more meaningful and informative. It also makes it > easy to figure out where a file might be without having to have too > much knowledge about the devices themselves. I really don't like > the idea of polluting this directory.
That's bogus already. Parts of platform code exist in sysdev/ or arch/powerpc/kernel/ so there isnt a single place to look. While that might have been the intent its not true in practice. >> 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. > > Yeah, that makes *no* sense to me either. It's an unfortunate > artifact of the naming of boards to include the core name. While > the devices and boards may be similar, once you have bookE vs non- > bookE cores, they become quite different. > > I still don't see why this isn't in "sysdev". We intended that to > be the device "kitchen sink". If we really don't want to put it > there, then I would prefer creating a "fsl_common" or "common" > directory under platforms. > > I'm also guilty of not noticing the original patch - my apologies. maybe we should just have a platforms/fsl for all boards from freescale. Not having things broken up by which processor family they are for. - k _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
