[PATCH] [POWERPC] Fix interrupt routing and setup of ULI M1575 on FSL boards

[Kumar Gala]

On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 01:00:47PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 11, 2007, at 12:20 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 12:03:48AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kumar Gala <galak at kernel.crashing.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8544ds.dts        |   88 ++++------
>>>>  arch/powerpc/boot/dts/mpc8641_hpcn.dts     |  114 +++----------
>>>>  arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/Kconfig        |    1 +
>>>>  arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/mpc8544_ds.c   |  214
>>>> ++----------------------
>>>>  arch/powerpc/platforms/86xx/Kconfig        |    1 +
>>>>  arch/powerpc/platforms/86xx/mpc86xx_hpcn.c |  224
>>>> ++-----------------------
>>>>  arch/powerpc/platforms/Kconfig             |    8 +
>>>>  arch/powerpc/platforms/Makefile            |    3 +
>>>>  arch/powerpc/platforms/fsl_uli1575.c       |  255
>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  9 files changed, 363 insertions(+), 545 deletions(-)
>>>>  create mode 100644 arch/powerpc/platforms/fsl_uli1575.c
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since when do we add code directly under powerpc/platforms? Isn't  
>>> that
>>> what we have sysdev for?
>>>
>>> I know this is already picked up, but I just noticed it when  
>>> looking at
>>> Kumar's 8572 patch. :-(
>>
>> I put it in platforms since it was related to the boards not the  
>> chips.  We
>> can go around about what sysdev actual means, but I'm using the  
>> assumption
>> that its for processor & bridges (for discrete processors 10x,  
>> mv640x0,
>> etc).  Things that are board specific like the ULI I'm putting under
>> platforms/
>
> Hmm, I don't like the pollution of that directory myself,  
> especially since
> we've been able to keep it clean up until now.

What's it matter if we have files under platforms/

Would you feel better if it was in platforms/common/ or platforms/fsl

> Maybe it would make more sense for you guys to slice the platforms
> differently, and have a common platform for the eval boards you have
> with ULi on them instead of grouping it by core used by the processor
> on the board.
>
> (In other words, move 86xx over under 85xx, since there wouldn't be  
> much
> left over anyway).

Moving 86xx (classic 74xx core) under 85xx (book e500 core) makes  
even less sense to me.

- k