Simon Burge wrote:
>>> 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 agree.
I have checked 4xx datasheet.
All 405xx families (405EP/405CR/NPe405H/405GP/405GPr) have one or more
GPIO controllers on opb.
And also all 440xx families (440EP/440GP/440GX/440SP/440SPe) too.
(Maybe 403xx has no GPIO controller. I have no datasheet about it)
I took back 'gpgpio' naming proposal.

>> - 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.

ibm4xx/pci/pchb.c + ibm4xx/dev/ibm405gp.c = plbpci.c ?

And...
Two functions in ibm4xx/pci/pci_machdep.c
(pci_intr_map()/pci_conf_interrupt()) are machine-dependent.
We should move them to evbppc/<board>/pci_machdep.c.
I think that other functions to powerpc/dev/plbpci.c. Is it ok?

>> - 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.

OpenBlockS266 port use files.ibm405gp.
but it is easy only to change `include' declaration
in kernel config. Is it ok?

There's still 405GP-specific part (opb_tag declaration) in
sys/arch/powerpc/ibm4xx/dev/opb.c.
This should be fixed.

-- 
Kind Regards,
--- shige
Shigeyuki Fukushima <shige@{FreeBSD,jp.FreeBSD,NetBSD}.org>