From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:49:53 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3 v4] arm: A320: Add support for Faraday A320 evaluation board In-Reply-To: References: <20090708113044.GO30395@game.jcrosoft.org> <4A7686DA.2000008@gmail.com> <20090804194831.GC4638@game.jcrosoft.org> <4A7895C9.8060506@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20090817214953.GF23695@game.jcrosoft.org> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On 12:45 Thu 06 Aug , Po-Yu Chuang wrote: > Dear Jean-Christophe and Darius, > > 2009/8/5 Darius Augulis : > > On 08/04/2009 10:48 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > >>>> as I understand correctly the faraday and the CS3518 share the same core > >>>> and > >>>> IP so it will be better to have the same dir > >>> > >>> I don't think so. Both A320 and Gemini share the same FA526 core, > >>> but different peripheral. There is no reason to create generic dir > >>> for A320 and Gemini. Also, no reason to create cpu/fa526 because > >>> fa526 is almost arm920t. > > Let me summarize. Correct me if I am wrong. > > a320 is an soc with fa526 core which is similar to arm920t. > Gemini is an soc with fa526 core. > > board | A320 evb | NAS4220 | > soc family | | Gemini | > soc | A320 | CS3516 | > cpu | FA526 | FA526 | > > CS3516 and A320 maybe have the same timer (but most IPs are different). > > >> duplicate code is worse > >> as example on at91 we do support multiple soc of the family in the same > >> generic dir which allow us to factorize common code and ofcourse split > >> soc specific code too > > What is the definition of an SOC family? > > > Gemini and A320 are not from the same family. There isn't any common code > > *yet*. They share only the same core. > > There are more dirs in cpu/arm920t: "imx", "s3c24x0", etc. Perhaps you won't > > suggest to move all these SoC's into single dir? > > Agree. Gemini and A320 are not the same family IMO. > The only common parts are the FA526 core and the timer. > (or is this sufficient to be a family?) this sufficient to not duplicate code > > The problem is how should the files be organized if two SOC families > use the same IP. > Maybe we can create a cpu/arm920t/common/ ? no it's must be fa526 dependant not arm920t common > But what if that IP is used in another SOC with arm926 core? (This > happens in Faraday's other SOCs) > > I think the easiest way is to treat A320 and Gemini patches unrelated. I do not want to have code duplicated for the other IP the will move for the most of them in drivers anyway as example on SH4 the Renesas & ST socs share the same timer, interrupt handler and few other thinks we will not duplicate for this will use the same code Best Regards, J.