On 5/24/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Stefan Roese</b> <<a href="mailto:sr@denx.de">sr@denx.de</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Wednesday 23 May 2007, Linux OneAccess wrote:<br>> I was figuring out how to pass board info from U-Boot to Linux and<br>> I saw that Linux references the bd_info structure.<br>><br>> I'm not sure, however, which definition to use:
<br>> In U-Boot, struct bd_info is defined in include/asm/u-boot.h<br>> In Linux, it's defined in include/asm-ppc/ppcboot.h.<br>> ...<br>> Furthermore, in Linux there are several boards that define their<br>
> own structure for this. Should we use the ppcboot.h definition,<br>> or is it there an intention to push the u-boot.h to the Linux tree one day?<br><br>This depends on the PPC platform you are using. What PPC platform are you
<br>talking about? MPC8xx, PPC4xx? MPC8xxx is quite dead in arch/ppc already for<br>example and you should start your board port in arch/powerpc. If it's PPC4xx,<br>then you should probably still use bd_info in arch/ppc, and it really doesn't
<br>matter how you hack the bd_info in the kernel, since it has to be moved to<br>arch/powerpc in the future anyway. I would suggest to define a "own" board<br>specific bd_info for now, to not pollute the asm-ppc/ppcboot.h with further
<br>#ifdefs.</blockquote><div><br>It's an MPC8280.<br>I agree it's best for now to pass the info our own way.<br><br>> Hope this helps.<br>> <br>> Best regards,<br>> Stefan<br>> <br>Thanks for helping,
<br><br>Marnix Coppens<br></div></div><br>