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

[Becky Bruce]

On Sep 11, 2007, at 1:33 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:

>
> 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/
>

The original intent of platforms as we (Kumar included) laid it out  
was that it *only* contain platform subdirs.  This makes it easy to  
poke around in platforms, and it makes reading the "ls" of that  
directory much more meaningful and informative.  It also makes it  
easy to figure out where a file might be without having to have too  
much knowledge about the devices themselves. I really don't like the  
idea of polluting this directory.


> 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.

Yeah, that makes *no* sense to me either.  It's an unfortunate  
artifact of the naming of boards to include the core name.  While the  
devices and boards may be similar, once you have bookE vs non-bookE  
cores, they become quite different.

I still don't see why this isn't in "sysdev".  We intended that to be  
the device "kitchen sink".  If we really don't want to put it there,  
then I would prefer creating a "fsl_common" or "common" directory  
under platforms.

I'm also guilty of not noticing the original patch - my apologies.

-Becky