[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/3 v4] arm: A320: Add support for Faraday A320 evaluation board

[Darius Augulis]

On 08/04/2009 10:48 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 09:42 Mon 03 Aug     , Darius Augulis wrote:
>> On 07/08/2009 02:30 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
>>> On 15:14 Fri 03 Jul     , Po-Yu Chuang wrote:
>>>> This patch adds support for A320 development board from Faraday. This board
>>>> uses FA526 processor by default and has 512kB and 32MB NOR flash, 64M RAM.
>>>> FA526 is an ARMv4 processor and uses the ARM920T source in this patch.
>>>>
>>> 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.
> 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

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?

A320 and Gemini *maybe* have the same timer IP, but there are few 
'small' problems. First: these processors, made in China, have very poor 
documentation. I must do lot of reverse-engineering work to create 
something working. Second, I don't have any A320 hardware to test 
something. It's very difficult to make most optimal release at the very 
beginning. After we have Gemini in main line, somebody interested in 
A320 should feel free to submit patches to optimize support for SoC's, 
based on FA526 core. Now I can't do this job and I guess it shouldn't be 
reason to reject my patches?

>
> Best Regards,
> J.
>