[U-Boot] [PATCH v4] Marvell Kirkwood family SOC support

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 10:16 Sun 03 May     , Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD [mailto:plagnioj at jcrosoft.com] 
> > Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2009 2:02 PM
> > To: Prafulla Wadaskar
> > Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de; Ashish Karkare; Prabhanjan Sarnaik; 
> > Ronen Shitrit
> > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4] Marvell Kirkwood family SOC support
> > 
> > On 14:41 Sat 02 May     , Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
> > > Thanks Jean for your review... 
> > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/cpu/arm926ejs/kirkwood/kwcore.c 
> > > > > b/cpu/arm926ejs/kirkwood/kwcore.c new file mode 100644 index
> > > > > 0000000..9eaaab6
> > > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > > +++ b/cpu/arm926ejs/kirkwood/kwcore.c
> > > > please cpu.c
> > > Okay I will rename it
> > > 
> > > > >   */
> > > > > -#ifndef CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT
> > > > > +#if !defined (CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT) || defined
> > > > > +(CONFIG_ARCH_LOWLEVEL_INIT)
> > > > NACK
> > > > 
> > > > if you skip the lowlevel init you also skip the arch lowlevel_init
> > > I got it already, I have encapsulated similar condition at 
> > caller function so that even though only ARCH_LOWLEVEL_INIT 
> > is define it will not skip it.
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > if it's permannent arch init please use arch_cpu_init
> > > Is it really lowlevel init, needs to be called before 
> > stack/dram init, so please let it be arch_lowlevel_init.
> > > I am trying to keep minimal code under arch_lowlevel_init (only few 
> > > assembly lines) rest I am moving to arch_cpu_init under 
> > > lib_arm/board.c
> > the arch_cpu_init is the first init in c and I want the 
> > current design clear If you choice to skip the lowlevel_init 
> > you will skip all lowlevel_init with no exception as I've in 
> > mind to regroup all start.S
> In this case....I think
> Let's have arch_cpu_init (c function call) to take care of Soc Specific init and
> Let's use lowlevel_init instead of arch_lowlevel_init for any configuration before stack init.
> arch_lowlevel_init should be assembly code similar to lowlevel_init and is invoking should be similar
> 
> In case of kirkwood specially in some board version if we use Kirkwood without internal BootROM we need
> to configure DRAM before setting stack in DRAM, this should be done in lowlevel_init.S i.e.
> lowlevel_init or arch_lowlevel_init jump
sure but in this case you will have to init everythink
as done for ofther ARCH at91 in norflash boot, ixp, pxa etc...

if the dram init is common of the arch the arch_lowlevel_init is the right
place, it's board specific lowlevel_init is.

please also note I'm preparing 2 new patch
that will introduce
board_pre_lowlevel_init and
arch_pre_lowlevel_init
with the board that use it (already mainline)
>
> What do you think? Or what is in your mind about regroup start.S?
For the start.S I'll take care of this
actually nearly all arm share the same start.S
and normaly the lowlevel_init is always the same
wiht just few specific thinks which will be care
by some few callback

Best Regards,
J.