Hi Greg, On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 10:33:06PM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: > > Hi Philippe, > > On 03/11/10 19:36, Philippe De Muyter wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 03, 2010 at 11:26:37AM +1000, Greg Ungerer wrote: >>> I propose that we make the ColdFire 548x support a little more >>> generic, so that it covers the 547x family as well. The two parts >>> are extremely similar. >> >> Do you have a handy document describing the differences ? I have both >> reference manuals, but didn't want to check any page for eventual >> differences. > > No, unfortunately I don't have any single document that just > describes the difference. The Freescale web site says the two > families are pin compatible - and from the doco I can only see > a couple of differences. (The main one is that the 548x family > all have CAN controllers, the 547x don't). > > >> If that could include the m5407, that would be perfect. > > The 5407 is very different - completely different peripheral set. > Different interrupt controller, timers, etc, to the 54xx series. > (It was designed to be a faster 5307 - same peripherals, v4 core > instead of v3). > > I don't think we will get too much common code between the > 5407 and 54xx.
The cache is the same, except for the size, and the m5407 has no ethernet. That's all what I know about the m54xx/m5407 similarities/differences. > > >>> Fundamentally I want to change any 548x naming to 54xx. I know >>> the obvious exception of the 5407 here, and this is another >>> example of unfortunate (or at least inconsistent) part naming on >>> Freescale's part. There is plenty of precendence here within >>> our current naming: >>> >>> 527x -- applies to 5270, 5271, 5274, 5275 BUT NOT 5272 >>> 520x -- applies to 5207 and 5208 BUT NOT 5206 >>> >>> so we will have as well: >>> >>> 52xx -- applies to 527? and 528? BUT NOT 5407 >> >> 54xx -- applies to 547? and 548? BUT NOT 5407 > > Oops, :-) > > >>> Strictly speaking I know this renaming is not a must. But the >>> motivation is to keep the naming as consistent and relevant as >>> possible. >>> >>> Below is an example patch that will do this change. On top of this >>> adding 547x ColdFire support is a trivial config option addition. >>> >>> Do you have any objections? >> >> I agree fully. For some files I already started from files from Freescale >> called m5485* that I renamed to m548x*. And also there is already a >> m54xxacr.h which applies also to m5407, but nothing is perfect. >> >> What about my pending watchdog driver patch? > > Oh, yes, that is still in my inbox :-) > I have no problems with it. But it should probably be reviewed > by the watchdog maintainer (I don't mind it going through the > m68knommu git tree to Linus if they are ok with that). > > From the MAINTAINERS file that looks to be: > > WATCHDOG DEVICE DRIVERS > M: Wim Van Sebroeck <w...@iguana.be> > L: linux-watch...@vger.kernel.org > W: http://www.linux-watchdog.org/ > T: git > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/wim/linux-2.6-watchdog.git > > In light of this 548x --> 54xx change you may want to change > the naming to 54xx as well. As it is now, I can only send it unchanged to the watchdog mailing list. Otherwise it won't apply to the tree those people have now. > > >>> --- >>> m68knommu: make Coldfire 548x support more generic >>> >>> The ColdFire 547x family of processors is very similar to the ColdFire >>> 548x series. Almost all of the support for them is the same. Make the >>> code supporting the 548x more gneric, so it will be capable of >>> supporting both families. >>> >>> For the most part this is a renaming excerise to make the support >>> code more obviously apply to both families. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Greg Ungerer<g...@uclinux.org> >>> --- >>> [...] >>> similarity index 95% >>> [...] >>> similarity index 92% >>> [...] >>> similarity index 74% >>> [...] >> >> Could you make that as two or three patches, first changing the contents >> of >> the files, and then renaming them, or conversely, to only produce renaming >> with 100% similarity ? > > I could, but you then end with a file named m54xxsim.h which has a > comment at the top that reads: > > * m548xsim.h -- ColdFire 547x/548x System Integration Unit support. > > > Which seems very inconsistent to me. I think it is better to move > it and make consistent name changes. I have already found those sort of inconsistencies, and that's not a real problem as long as it does not hurt compilation. Nobody will really read the title in the source files. And here it would only last for one commit. Being able to find renames by searching for only 100% similarity seems to me more usefull, because searching for 100% similarity is a very faster operation than for not 100%. Best regards Philippe -- Philippe De Muyter phdm at macqel dot be Tel +32 27029044 Macq Electronique SA rue de l'Aeronef 2 B-1140 Bruxelles Fax +32 27029077 _______________________________________________ uClinux-dev mailing list uClinux-dev@uclinux.org http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/listinfo/uclinux-dev This message was resent by uclinux-dev@uclinux.org To unsubscribe see: http://mailman.uclinux.org/mailman/options/uclinux-dev
