[PATCH] [POWERPC] Xilinx: add compatibility for 'simple-bus'.

[John Linn]

I'll give it a try, sounds easy.

-- John

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Neuendorffer 
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 10:49 AM
To: grant.likely at secretlab.ca; John Linn
Cc: dwg at au1.ibm.com; jwboyer at linux.vnet.ibm.com;
linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org; git
Subject: RE: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Xilinx: add compatibility for
'simple-bus'.


Ah.. good idea... hadn't thought of that, I guess.

John Linn: I have no time to look at this.  Can you see if such a fix
fixes the problem?

Steve

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Grant Likely [mailto:glikely at secretlab.ca] On Behalf Of Grant
Likely
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 9:34 AM
> To: Stephen Neuendorffer
> Cc: dwg at au1.ibm.com; jwboyer at linux.vnet.ibm.com;
linuxppc-dev at ozlabs.org; git
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] [POWERPC] Xilinx: add compatibility for
'simple-bus'.
> 
> Stephen Neuendorffer wrote:
> > Grant Likely wrote:
> > > > I think the easiest solution is to change the Kconfig so that
> > > > PPC_UDBG_16550 is only selected based on !XILINX_VIRTEX.  I've
done this
> > > > in my tree, but I've been swamped with other things at the
moment, so I
> > > > haven't verified it.
> > >
> > > This is an easy solution, but it is not a good one.  Doing so
would
> > > break UDBG on other 405 boards when building multiplatform
kernels.
> > > It would be better to teach legacy serial about the shift and
offset.
> > > Alternately, add code to add_legacy_soc_port() to skip it if the
> > > shift/offset properties are present.
> >
> > Is there really much of a chance of that, given the differences
> > with the bootwrappers?  Does anyone care enough about legacy_serial
> > for this to matter?   My impression was that legacy serial was not
> > preferred anyway...
> 
> You never know, a single kernel build can be wrapped multiple times,
and
> besides, it is a trivial fix.  Just add a test for the presence of
> reg-shift and bail if it is present.
> 
> I don't know much about the history of legacy serial, but I do not
> support adding multiplatform restrictions when not needed.
> legacy_serial may be crusty, but it does have the advantage of
> supporting UDBG which is a useful feature.  It may or may not go away.
> 
> Cheers,
> g.
> 


This email and any attachments are intended for the sole use of the named recipient(s) and contain(s) confidential information that may be proprietary, privileged or copyrighted under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, or forward this email message or any attachments. Delete this email message and any attachments immediately.