Hi,
My comments are probably irrelevant as I assume the object of this
work is to merge the files without overly changing the binaries,
however, for the record and to repeat what David said:
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:09, Robert Reif <reif@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> index 0f616ae..625d605 100644
> --- a/arch/sparc/kernel/of_device_64.c
> +++ b/arch/sparc/kernel/of_device.c
> @@ -192,12 +194,15 @@ static unsigned long of_bus_default_get_flags(const
> u32 *addr, unsigned long fla
>
> static int of_bus_pci_match(struct device_node *np)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARC32
> + if (!strcmp(np->type, "pci") || !strcmp(np->type, "pciex")) {
> +#else
> if (!strcmp(np->name, "pci")) {
> const char *model = of_get_property(np, "model", NULL);
>
> if (model && !strcmp(model, "SUNW,simba"))
> return 0;
> -
> +#endif
Is there really any functional difference here? - I.e. is sparc32 ever
going to have a "simba" device and is sparc64 ever going to have a
pciex type device node?
> @@ -213,6 +218,7 @@ static int of_bus_pci_match(struct device_node *np)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARC64
> static int of_bus_simba_match(struct device_node *np)
> {
> const char *model = of_get_property(np, "model", NULL);
> @@ -236,6 +242,7 @@ static int of_bus_simba_map(u32 *addr, const u32 *range,
> {
> return 0;
> }
> +#endif
Is it harmful for sparc32 to have this function defined?
> @@ -314,6 +321,22 @@ static void of_bus_sbus_count_cells(struct device_node
> *child,
> *sizec = 1;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARC32
> +static int of_bus_sbus_map(u32 *addr, const u32 *range, int na, int ns, int
> pna)
> +{
> + return of_bus_default_map(addr, range, na, ns, pna);
> +}
> +
> +static unsigned long of_bus_sbus_get_flags(const u32 *addr, unsigned long
> flags)
> +{
> + return IORESOURCE_MEM;
> +}
> +#else
> +#define of_bus_sbus_map of_bus_default_map
> +#define of_bus_sbus_get_flags of_bus_default_get_flags
> +#endif
Aren't the two branches of this ifdef essentially identical for
of_bus_sbus_map()?
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARC64
> /*
> * FHC/Central bus specific translator.
> *
> @@ -330,6 +353,7 @@ static int of_bus_fhc_match(struct device_node *np)
> }
>
> #define of_bus_fhc_count_cells of_bus_sbus_count_cells
> +#endif
Again, is it harmful for sparc32 to have this defined?
> @@ -345,6 +369,7 @@ static struct of_bus of_busses[] = {
> .map = of_bus_pci_map,
> .get_flags = of_bus_pci_get_flags,
> },
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARC64
> /* SIMBA */
> {
> .name = "simba",
> @@ -354,15 +379,17 @@ static struct of_bus of_busses[] = {
> .map = of_bus_simba_map,
> .get_flags = of_bus_pci_get_flags,
> },
> +#endif
Is there any harm in having this code included in sparc32?
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARC64
> /* FHC */
> {
> .name = "fhc",
> @@ -372,6 +399,7 @@ static struct of_bus of_busses[] = {
> .map = of_bus_default_map,
> .get_flags = of_bus_default_get_flags,
> },
> +#endif
Ditto.
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SPARC64
> static struct device_node * __init
> apply_interrupt_map(struct device_node *dp, struct device_node *pp,
> const u32 *imap, int imlen, const u32 *imask,
> @@ -785,12 +822,17 @@ out:
>
> return irq;
> }
> +#endif
Is it harmful to have this defined for sparc32?
Thanks,
--
Julian Calaby
Email: julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
