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

[Po-Yu Chuang]

Dear Jean-Christophe and Darius,

2009/8/5 Darius Augulis <augulis.darius at gmail.com>:
> 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?)

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/ ?
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.

best regards,
Po-Yu Chuang