[U-Boot] [PATCH] mips: rename arch mt7620 to mt7628

[Stefan Roese]

On 29.04.19 11:28, Weijie Gao wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-04-29 at 07:08 +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
>> On 28.04.19 11:38, Weijie Gao wrote:
>>> The MediaTek MT7620 and MT7628 SoCs are different.
>>> Although they use the same memory controller, the lowlevel code (CPU PLL)
>>> and other peripherals they use are totally different. Which means they
>>> should use seperate mach directories.
>>
>> s/seperate/separate
>>
>>> Currently the mach mt7620 contains only architecture code of MT7628.
>>> In case we add real arch support of MT7620 in the future, the arch should
>>> be renamed to mt7628, including both Kconfig files and directories.
>>> Other files affected are also modified.
>>
>> Perhaps it would be possible to support both SoC's (MT7620 and MT7628/88)
>> in one mach directory? Frankly I don't know the differences in detail, so
>> its your call.

<snip>

> Dear Stefan,
> 
> Thanks for pointing out the missing files.
> 
> Here is the summary of HW components needed by u-boot for MT7620 and
> MT7628:
> 
> L1 data cache:            MT7620 can not lock it.
>                            MT7628 uses it to do DDR calibration.
> CPU frequency (PLL):      MT7620 can change it. MT7628 can't.
>                            The PLL registers are different.
> DRAM controller:          Near the same.
>                            MT7620 can't do calibration.
>                            MT7628 has extra PAD configurations.

These "devices / controllers" are handled in the mach-foo directory.

> GPIO controller:          Not the same IP core.
> SPI controller:           Not the same IP core.
> Frame engine:             Similar IP core, different generation.
> Built-in Ethernet switch: Not the same IP core.

And these controllers are handled in the drivers/foo directly. So any
different IP core (between MT7620 and MT7628) has no effect to the
mach directory.

Please don't misunderstand me. I absolutely agree that we need to
differentiate between those two SoC's. So moving to CONFIG_SOC_MT7628
instead of SOC_MT7620 makes perfect sense. I only want to avoid the
creation of another mach-foo directory, where code might be shared
between both SoC's.

> 
> So I insist to split them into two mach directory.

I see. Okay, lets move forward then with your patch and lets finally
decide if and what can be shared between those SoC's, once (if) support
for the MT7620 arrives in mainline.

BTW: Do you plan on adding support for the MT7620 anytime soon?

Thanks,
Stefan