On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Wolfgang Denk <w...@denx.de> wrote: > Dear Scott, > > in message <4a01f602.2010...@freescale.com> you wrote: >> >> All of the above is duplicative (with even the same names) of stuff in >> asm/cpm.h. Beyond just the duplication, what happens if both CPM2 and > > OK, I can try to reuse the definitions from that file. > >> 512x are enabled in the same kernel? > > Hm... both architectures look sufficiently different to me that I > don't see sense in trying such a thing. Do you think that needs to be > supported?
Yes! :-) It's not hard to do and it keeps the driver cleaner (IMNSHO). I don't think it is quite possible at the moment due to cache coherency issues, but with Becky's recently merged dma ops changes it should be fixable. Cheers, g. -- Grant Likely, B.Sc., P.Eng. Secret Lab Technologies Ltd. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
