Izumi Tsutsui wrote:

> In article <20060313113125.CF54323402@thoreau.thistledown.com.au>
> simonb@wasabisystems.com wrote:
> 
> > > IMHO, if the "gp" prefix of "gpiic" means 405GP
> > > (since it's in files.ibm405gp) and gpio (which is
> > > defined in files.ibm4xx) is also available on other
> > > 4xx ppc processors, more generic prefix is better.
> > > If gpio is available only on 405GP, the name "gpgpio"
> > > seems okay but the declaration should be moved into
> > > files.ibm405gp from files.ibm4xx.
> > 
> > Other 405 processors have GPIO as well (I just checked the 405CR and
> > 405EP datasheets).
> 
> Hmm, then opb (On-chip Peripheral Bus) is better?

opbgpio works for me.

> > I'd suggest all of files.ibm405gp should really be
> > in files.ibm4xx, and any gp prefixs be renamed.  I can't think of what
> > to rename them too right now though :-/
> 
> I agree that files.ibm405gp should be merged into files.ibm4xx,
> but it may require:
> - options IBM405GP (or something) is needed to specify ibm405gp.c
>   (or should it be renamed to obppci.c??)

PCI doesn't need to be 405gp specific.  It attaches to the PLB
(processor local bus), so plbpci.c would be better.

> - declaration of rtc.c should be conditional by kernel config

There's still some cleanup to be done here.  Note that the first 405gp
port (walnut) doesn't actually use files.ibm405gp(!).  I don't think
that issue is going to be hard to fix.

Simon.
--
Simon Burge                            <simonb@wasabisystems.com>
NetBSD Support and Service:         http://www.wasabisystems.com/