[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH] Enable the IceCube/lite5200 variants to pass a device tree to Linux.

[Grant Likely]

On 10/29/06, Grant Likely <grant.likely at secretlab.ca> wrote:
> On 10/29/06, Wolfgang Denk <wd at denx.de> wrote:
> > In message <11621624513123-git-send-email-grant.likely at secretlab.ca> you wrote:
> > > This patch adds the code and configuration necessary to boot with an
> > > arch/powerpc Linux kernel.
> > ...
> > > --- a/board/icecube/icecube.c
> > > +++ b/board/icecube/icecube.c
> > ...
> > > @@ -334,3 +338,11 @@ void ide_set_reset (int idereset)
> > >       }
> > >  }
> > >  #endif /* defined (CFG_CMD_IDE) && defined (CONFIG_IDE_RESET) */
> > > +
> > > +#if defined(CONFIG_OF_FLAT_TREE) && defined(CONFIG_OF_BOARD_SETUP)
> > > +void
> > > +ft_board_setup(void *blob, bd_t *bd)
> > > +{
> > > +     ft_cpu_setup(blob, bd);
> > > +}
> > > +#endif
> >
> > How much of this is really board dependent? How likely  is  it,  then
> > all other 5200 boards will just copy & paste these few lines of code?
> > Maybe we can make this common code, and just allow for board-specific
> > overwrites when really needed?
>
> Oh, probably.  :)
>
> In this case I was following the convention already established w/ the
> other boards.  I can take another look and see about making a
> recommendation for cleaning up this construct.

Wolfgang,

I'd like to defer this change to another patch.  This convention is
used by all boards that support OF booting, so it should all be
changed at once.  Plus there is still discussion about what the
correct layout should be between ft_setup, ft_cpu_setup and
ft_board_setup calls.

Is that okay by you?

Cheers,
g.

-- 
Grant Likely, B.Sc. P.Eng.
Secret Lab Technologies Ltd.
grant.likely at secretlab.ca
(403) 399-0195