On Wednesday 10 October 2007, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > Do you really need config options for 405EP/EX? I don't seem them used > > > anywhere else in the code (and it's also contradictory to the whole new > > > multiplatform way of looking at stuff :). > > > > > > I know the 405/440 is still somewhat #ifdef:ed on the cpu here and > > > there, but since this doesn't add any such code I don't see a need for > > > the config options? > > > > Yes, I'm still used to needing these defines from arch/ppc (for example > > for the 4xx EMAC driver). But its possible, that we really don't need it > > at all in arch/powerpc with all the device tree information. Not sure > > though. > > > > Josh, what do you think? Should I remove the 405EX define completely? > > If it's not needed, it can go. As Olof said, it doesn't appear to be > used anywhere in the code so I think it's fine.
OK, I'll remove it. If we later see that we need it, we can always add it again. > One question I do have is if 405EX and 405EP need any of the 405GP > errata config options selected. I would like to think those don't apply > because the hardware is fixed, but I haven't checked to be sure. Yes, the 2 405 errata's IBM405_ERR51 and IBM405_ERR77 do not apply to "newer" 405 cores. Only 405GP (and 405CR I assume) are affected. Best regards, Stefan _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
