new code for an mpc8xx board (dbox2)
trini at kernel.crashing.org
Tue Aug 5 09:12:48 EST 2003
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 11:36:34PM +0200, Florian Schirmer wrote:
> >> I'd also like to know if there is a better way to handle edge
> >> triggered interrupts on 8xx than it is done in
> >> linux-2.4.22-pre6-dbox2-irq.diff. Should CONFIG_DBOX2 be removed in
> >> this patch or maybe replaced by CONFIG_8xx?
> >Which interrupt is being generated that requires this change?
> IIRC it is an ugly hack for a broken hardware. The initial problem was that
> there is some hardware we don't have any documentation for. It generates
> interrupts, but we dont know how to properly acknowledge them. This is why
> we "invented" the SA_ONESHOT hack. If there is any other way to work around
> this please let us know...
Well, in that case I'd be inclined to leave it as CONFIG_DBOX2 only,
with a comment describing what hardware this is for.
> >If you use PPCBoot / U-Boot, you do not need to fill out an
> >embed_config routine, and it's OK to let zImage fail.
> This will break scripts expecting "make zImage" to return successfully.
Yes, it does. It's also how all of the other PPCBoot / U-Boot only
platforms work. Now that I think about this again, would you mind
looking at the source and seeing if the following in embed_config.c
would break anything?
(Or so, look at arch/ppc/boot/common/serial_stub.c for the proper usage
> I would like to see the userspace interface merged too
> I propose to drop the kernel watchdog patch and merge in the following
> functions of the userspace interface instead:
> mpc8xx_wdt_reset (needs to be exported to modules)
> mpc8xx_wdt_handler_install (has to called during kernel init)
> mpc8xx_wdt_handler_remove is dead and can be removed.
I need a bit of time to think about this (and a 'new' patch would be
nice as well). I'll get back to you.
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev