Hi, all.
2008/9/23 Stefan Roese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Monday 22 September 2008, Andrew Dyer wrote:
>> >> I did a simple check.
>> >>
>> >> Only powerpc and i386 and sh seem to use PCI.
>> >> If powerpc does not have a problem, would you commit it?
>> >
>> > Do I have your "go" (or at least no veto) to apply this patch?
>>
>> (forgot to reply all on this, already sent to the O.P.)
>>
>> I think this is going to break some boards/archs. From the top
>> of the u-boot tree, if you do
>>
>> find . -type f -exec grep pci_register_hose {} /dev/null \;
>>
>> it shows all the source files that are registering a PCI bus. A quick
>> look shows there are MIPS, ARM, x86 in that list at least, that aren't
>> addressed by this change.
>
> That's correct. This patch moves the original defines to the PPC specific
> header and introduces new defines in the SH specific header. All other ARCH's
> will not compile anymore when they try to include PCI support.
I understand that some macro of the PCI does not depend on only PPC as Andrew
points it out.
I am thinking other countermeasure.
>
> So, NAK from me. An acceptable patch would be to move the original defines at
> least to all ARCH's already using PCI.
>
> BTW: I fail to see what's really PPC specific about the pci code in question.
> Nobuhiro, could you please elaborate what's the problem here?
I wanted to remove CPU and baords of specific code from from PCI network driver.
CONFIG_E500, DB64360 and DB64460 CPU is PPC.
I thought that I could collect these with header files of PPC.
Therefore I sent that patch in RFC.
Best regards,
Nobuhiro
--
Nobuhiro Iwamatsu
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
