Hello Scott, On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:10:51 -0500 Scott Wood wrote:
> Vitaly Bordug wrote: > > Hello Scott, > > > > Looks good, only one note: > > > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:06:16 -0500 > > Scott Wood wrote: > > > >> + im_dprambase = cpm2_immr->im_dprambase; > >> + > >> /* Attach the usable dpmem area */ > >> /* XXX: This is actually crap. CPM_DATAONLY_BASE and > >> * CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE is only a subset of the available dpram. It > >> * varies with the processor and the microcode patches activated. > >> * But the following should be at least safe. > >> */ > >> - rh_attach_region(&cpm_dpmem_info, 0, r.end - r.start + 1); > >> + rh_attach_region(&cpm_dpmem_info, CPM_MAP_ADDR + CPM_DATAONLY_BASE, > >> + CPM_DATAONLY_SIZE); > >> } > >> > > > > Can we have something to address upper comment? I mean,any way to > > have dpram beginning and size encoded in the device tree? We seem to > > be adding new bus, and still pulling the information from the > > defines. Maybe I miss something here, but it looks a bit odd. > > This bit is #ifndef CONFIG_PPC_CPM_NEW_BINDING (and can come out once > all arch/powerpc boards are converted and tested -- I think it's just > mpc866ads and CPM mpc85xx left to go). The new code in > arch/powerpc/sysdev/cpm_common.c does get it from the device tree. > ok, sorry for the noise. If so, I'll try to test-n-fix upper two soon. Unfortunately, there are many 8xx in ppc, that may depend on cpm (need to check). -- Sincerely, Vitaly _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev