EV-64260-BP & GT64260 bi_recs

benh at kernel.crashing.org benh at kernel.crashing.org
Thu Mar 21 00:19:24 EST 2002

>I disagree. I don't see how a generic BI_ETH_CFG is possible. See how I've
>implemented BI_GT64260_ETH_CFG in arch/ppc/kernel/setup.c:parse_bootinfo: it
>injects the information from this record directly into the gt64260_eth
>which is where this information is needed.

This is the wrong approach. What we should do instead is have the gt eth
do some kind of find_bi_rec(BI_GT64260_ETH_CFG). setup.c doesn't have to be
changed each time a new birec is added, and your approach seem wrong if
that driver ever becomes a module.

What I have not yet decided regarding what to do of birec's in 2.5.
That is either providing some structure to them so they represent devices
with all the mapping & routing information needed (flexible enough to
most embedded needs), that is some kind of lightweight device-tree, or if
we just
stay to what we have now (minus bd_t), that is everybody defines it's own
set of

I've started writing a draft of what the first option could be last year, I'll
see if I can still find it and post it for you guys to fight over some
material ;)

The _important_ point however is that the common arch code and the common
CPU code mustn't have to care (or be modified) when a bi_rec is added and
then later used by whatever driver you want to pass it to.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list