Anton Vorontsov wrote:
>>>This patch adds localbus and pata nodes to use CF IDE interface
>>>on MPC8349E-mITX boards.
>>>Patch also adds code to probe localbus.
>>>Signed-off-by: Anton Vorontsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>---
>>>arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8349emitx.dts | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
>>>arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/mpc834x_itx.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>diff --git a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8349emitx.dts
>>>b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8349emitx.dts
>>>index 5072f6d..7a97068 100644
>>>--- a/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8349emitx.dts
>>>+++ b/arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8349emitx.dts
>>>@@ -249,6 +249,21 @@
>>> device_type = "pci";
>>> };
>>>
>>>+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] {
>>>+ #address-cells = <2>;
>>>+ #size-cells = <1>;
>>>+ compatible = "fsl,mpc8349emitx-localbus",
>>
>> Board compatible bus?
> This is what Documentation/powerpc/booting-without-of.txt suggests
> for localbuses. I'm following.
Hm...
>>>+ "fsl,mpc8349e-localbus",
>>>+ "fsl,pq2pro-localbus";
>>>+ reg = <e0005000 d8>;
>>>+ ranges = <3 0 f0000000 210>;
>>>
>>>-
>>>+ [EMAIL PROTECTED],0 {
>>>+ compatible = "fsl,mpc8349emitx-pata",
>>>"pata-platform";
>>>+ reg = <3 0 10 3 20c 4>;
>>>+ ioport-shift = <1>;
>> Bleh... that shift again. And this is surely not a good name for a
>>property (where's I/O ports in your case?) -- why not call it "reg-shift"
>>(well, I'd call it "reg-size" or "reg-stride" myself :-)?
> 1. "shift" because pata_platform using that name. I don't see any
> reason to contrive indirections. ioport-shift is what the whole
> Linux kernel using nowadays, and ioport-shift dts property
> anyway Linux-specific.
It's just a bad name. There's not even I/O ports in this case (and
moreover, the *real* I/O mapped device would always have a shift of 0, I bet
-- larger strides are for memory mapped devices).
> I'm just following todays' conventions.
> If you feel really bad about that, I think better to fix that in
> the source of the badness -- pata_platform. It's easy, I can do
I only feel really bad about the "ioport" part, I can live with "shift"
part. :-)
> that. Would you ack patch that converts whole pata_platform and
> users? Would Paul ack it?
I don't understand -- why the property name should duplicate pata_platform
field name? :-O
> Still, is there any hardware that needs not power of 2 stride?
Not really -- "size" just seems better, aesthetically. :-)
> 2. "ioport" because shift^Wstride ;-) applies only to the io range
> (yes, it's obvious, but worth open-wording, no?).
Contrarywise, to memory range.
> And btw, I can get rid of ioport-shift at all. And do fixups in
> the pata_of_platform driver via .compatible matching. But I don't
> want: it feels bad to list every needs-to-fixup board in the common
> driver. It also feels not so great creating something like
> pata-platform-stride-{1,2,4,...} compatible stuff. Heh.
I didn't propose neither of that. :-)
All I want is that "ioport-*" be renamed.
> Thanks,
MBR, Sergei
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
