[PATCH 1/2] spl: Introduce architecture specific init function

[Michal Simek]

čt 21. 3. 2024 v 8:55 odesílatel Lukas Funke <
lukas.funke-oss at weidmueller.com> napsal:

> On 20.03.2024 16:49, Andre Przywara wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:33:16 -0400
> > Tom Rini <trini at konsulko.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 08:52:30PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> >>> Hi Tom, Lukas,
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the patch Lukas.
> >>>
> >>> On 20/03/24 20:00, Tom Rini wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 02:19:26PM +0100,
> lukas.funke-oss at weidmueller.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> From: Lukas Funke <lukas.funke at weidmueller.com>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Some architectures use spl_board_init() in their architecture
> specific
> >>>>> implementation. Board developers should be able to add board specific
> >>>>> implementation via spl_board_init(). Hence, introduce a
> spl_arch_init()
> >>>>> method which is called right before spl_board_init() for architecture
> >>>>> specific implementation.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Lukas Funke <lukas.funke at weidmueller.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> I think this could allow for other SoCs to clean up their existing
> >>>
> >>> Does it make more sense to make this SoC specific then instead of arch
> >>> specific to allow broader range of code?
> >>
> >> "soc" and "arch" are somewhat interchangeable at times, so I think we
> >
> > Isn't "arch" ambiguous anyway? I connect that with CPU architecture, as
> in
> > x86, ARM, RISC-V. And we have that in the top level directories:
> arch/arm,
> > etc.
> > But here it's one level below, isn't it? Where "platform" (or "plat")
> > would be a more suiting term to describe a SoC family, like xilinx or
> > sunxi?
> > So the hierarchy would be really: arch -> plat -> soc -> board?
> >
> > Or am I confused here?
>
> No. But in some cases the 'platform' level is missing: for xilinx it's
> "arch->arm->mach-zynq-><impl>", for rockchip it's
> "arch->arm->plat->soc", i.e. "arch->arm->mach-rockchip->rk3399-><impl>".
> If we follow your proposed rule it should be:
> arch->arm->mach-xilinx->zynq-><impl>. Maybe this is an idea for the next
> cleanup round?
>
> Regarding the patch:
>
> I'd agree that the init code is not (cpu)architecture dependent. Some
> vendors init the console, some init the ddr, some init the leds and so
> on. Thus, we should go one level upwards and change it to
> "spl_soc_init()" if everyone is okay with it?
>
>
In our case soc and plat are the same.
Arch is clear that's armv7/v8,
socs/platform are zynq/zynqmp/versal/versal-net
And boards are generic/kria or antminer, syzygy, topic, etc.

And agree that we should do some cleanup in this.

Thanks,
Michal

-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Microblaze
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM and ZynqMP ARM64 SoCs
U-Boot custodian - Xilinx Microblaze/Zynq/ZynqMP/Versal SoCs