Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 08 January 2008, John Rigby wrote: > >> obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_CHRP) += chrp/ >> obj-$(CONFIG_40x) += 40x/ >> obj-$(CONFIG_44x) += 44x/ >> +obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_512x) += 512x/ >> obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_MPC52xx) += 52xx/ >> obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_8xx) += 8xx/ >> obj-$(CONFIG_PPC_82xx) += 82xx/ >> > > Why do you name the directory 512x instead of 51xx, which would be > more consistent with the others? Do you expect other 51xx chips that > are mostly incompatible with 512x? > 51xx would be confusing because 5100 was a precursor to the 5200.
Adding it to 52xx would is wrong because 5121 is really not that much like a 5200. It is really a 83xx minus some networking hw plus some 5200 peripherals (PSCs and MSCAN). In the best of possible worlds it would have a 83xx part number and go in 83xx but that would be confusing since it is targeted at the automotive market. > Moreover, is it really so different from 52xx that it needs a separate > directory? E.g. we often treat the 74xx and 7xx as 6xx variants. > > Arnd <>< > > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev