[PATCH] powerpc: consolidate mpc83xx platform files

[Kumar Gala]

On Dec 12, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Scott Wood wrote:

> Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 2006, at 3:30 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> They *may* not want to (and they certainly shouldn't be forced  
>>> to),  but
>>> some may not want to define a new ppc_md (or modify a probe  
>>> function)
>>> for every new board if all of the differences are encapsulated in  
>>> the
>>> device tree.  I thought one of the main goals of having a device   
>>> tree is
>>> that if it's done right, the kernel need not know about every single
>>> model of board, just the different components that a device tree can
>>> specify.
>> That's true, and if that's the case you'd just set your "model"  
>> to  match an existing supported ppc_md.
>
> Having an 831x explicitly claim to be an 834x is just a tad icky...
>
>>> If a board has truly board-specific logic that needs custom code  
>>> in  the
>>> kernel itself (rather than the bootloader), then it can go in as a
>>> driver with a device tree node (this should be done with the  
>>> BCSR  stuff
>>> where needed).
>> This is not always the case, there are times when you have board   
>> specific modifications you make in the early kernel code.
>
> Sure -- I'm not proposing doing away with board-specific machine  
> descriptions entirely, just reducing the circumstances where  
> they're required.

And I'm asking why we are arguing over 10-15 lines of code per board.

>> True, but I dont see what the desire is to create a 'generic'  
>> 83xx  support.  Who gets to define what is considered 'generic'?
>
> "Generic" is any board that has needs that aren't expressed in the  
> device tree.

Which device tree specification?  The one today, the one six months  
ago, the one six months from now?  The concept is ever changing and  
doesn't provide much value.

>> I'm all for refactoring code so my board code  is simpler, but at  
>> the end of the day I know there are people that  are going to need  
>> board specific code for their environments.
>
> And an 83xx-generic machine description does not stop them from  
> doing so.  "Generic" does not mean "universal".  It means "there's  
> nothing special about this board".  If you need board-specific code  
> in the kernel, then don't label it generic.

But what value does this have?  83xx, and the majority of freescale's  
devices are not put into something as standard as a desktop computer.

- k