<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7652.24">
<TITLE>RE: [PATCH] [RFC] Xilinx: Add generic configuration option to enable all xilinx drivers.</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<BR>
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Hmm... interesting points. I guess my feeling was that XILINX_DRIVERS could be a more broadly configurable option, with some of these ideas in mind. Currently, it's hidden by default, but we could easily change this to be visible by default, or selected by a broader number of architectures. I tend to think about them as a group: What if x86 *did* support the primitives needed by these drivers, then if the individual drivers depend on XILINX_DRIVERS, then the modification could be made in one spot. By your suggestion, we would have to modify each one independantly.<BR>
<BR>
I do dislike the hodgepodge of different configuration dependencies (such as Sysace)... It makes sense to me to have them be uniformly available. If they are all going to be PPC32 || microblaze, then it seems to me like there should be an intermediate configuration option that expresses exactly that set.<BR>
<BR>
Would you feel differently if we flipped the dependencies around, like XILINX_DRIVERS depends on PPC32 || MICROBLAZE?<BR>
<BR>
Steve<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: glikely@secretlab.ca on behalf of Grant Likely<BR>
Sent: Tue 3/18/2008 9:15 PM<BR>
To: Stephen Neuendorffer<BR>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org; jacmet@sunsite.dk<BR>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Xilinx: Add generic configuration option to enable all xilinx drivers.<BR>
<BR>
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Stephen Neuendorffer<BR>
<stephen.neuendorffer@xilinx.com> wrote:<BR>
> In the future, this will be used to provide similar configuration for<BR>
> PowerPC and Microblaze. It may also be convenient for those using<BR>
> Xilinx cores as peripherals for external processors, rather than<BR>
> explicitly having a dependance on the processor architecture.<BR>
><BR>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Neuendorffer <stephen.neuendorffer@xilinx.com><BR>
><BR>
> ---<BR>
><BR>
> Grant,<BR>
><BR>
> This is the patch, updated for all of the drivers that I think are in<BR>
> the tree. I think the problematic parts may be the ppc part, which is<BR>
> required for backward compatibility. If this has to wait until ppc<BR>
> dies, then that's fine with me, I guess.<BR>
><BR>
> It may also be better to clean up the Kconfig lines for Sysace and<BR>
> framebuffer drivers by having PPC32 or PPC4xx select XILINX_DRIVERS.<BR>
> My understanding is that those config options are there because of<BR>
> people using external PPCs with those devices in the FPGA.<BR>
<BR>
Hey Steve;<BR>
<BR>
I haven't forgotten about this patch, but I've been thinking about it<BR>
some more and I'm coming to the conclusion that it might just be<BR>
better to eliminate driver dependence on XILINX_DRIVERS and<BR>
XILINX_VIRTEX entirely and instead just make each of them "depends on<BR>
PPC32 || MICROBLAZE". There's no reason to restrict compiling these<BR>
drivers to platforms that are known to have xilinx parts on them.<BR>
<BR>
I know that in most cases they will not be used, but by relaxing the<BR>
dependencies they will get compile tested on more platforms than they<BR>
are now and they'll get picked up for make allyesconfigs builds. In<BR>
my mind this means greater chances of compile bugs getting found and<BR>
reported.<BR>
<BR>
In fact, it would be nice to drop the PPC32 || MICROBLAZE dependency<BR>
too; but I think the drivers are using io primitives at the moment<BR>
that are not portable to x86.<BR>
<BR>
Thoughts?<BR>
<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
g.<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng.<BR>
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>