[U-Boot-Users] [PATCH 3/5] AT91CAP9 support : cpu/ files

[Stelian Pop]

Le vendredi 01 février 2008 à 00:24 +0100, Ulf Samuelsson a écrit :
> > Signed-off-by: Stelian Pop <stelian at popies.net>
> > ---
> > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/Makefile        |   46 ++++++++++
> > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/config.mk       |    2 +
> > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/ether.c         |   35 ++++++++
> > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/lowlevel_init.S |   43 +++++++++
> > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/spi.c           |  119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/timer.c         |  149 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/usb.c           |   54 ++++++++++++
> > cpu/arm926ejs/interrupts.c             |    2 +-
> > cpu/arm926ejs/start.S                  |    3 +
> 
> How much is different from the Atmel AT91SAM926x U-Boot patches on www.linux4sam.org?

Quite different. The AT91SAM926x U-Boot patches are against u-boot-1.1.5
uses a lot of "local" drivers, whereas the AT91CAP9 port reuses the
existing in-tree drivers where possible (for ethernet, NOR flash, etc)

> The CAP9 is very similar to the AT91SAM9263.

Yes, it is. 

> Should those chips share drivers?

They do, but those drivers are also common to other cpus (the ethernet
is also used by avr32). So the place for those drivers is under drivers/
more than in a common at91cap/sam cpu/ directory.

> Then it would be better to store the files in "cpu/arm926ejs/at91sam926x"

Maybe. Or maybe the whole cpu/ separation should be rethink (for
example, if a port for the AT91CAP7 - which very similar to the AT91CAP9
except for the ARM7TDMI core - is to be done, where should it go ? Maybe
the cpu and the soc elements should be separated.

Stelian.
-- 
Stelian Pop <stelian at popies.net>