[PATCH v2] Add support for generic BCM SoC chipsets

[florian@openwrt.org (Florian Fainelli)]

On Sunday 11 November 2012 09:32:13 Christian Daudt wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Florian Fainelli <florian@openwrt.org>wrote:
> 
> > Hi Christian,
> >
> > On Sunday 11 November 2012 06:57:14 Christian Daudt wrote:
> > > In order to start upstreaming Broadcom SoC support, create
> > > a starting hierarchy, arch and dts files.
> > > The first support SoC family that is planned is the
> > > BCM281XX (BCM28145/28150/28155/28160) family of dual A9 mobile SoC cores
> > > This code is just the skeleton code for get the machine upstreamed. It
> > > has been made MULTIPLATFORM compatible.
> > > Next steps
> > > ----------
> > > Upstream a basic set of drivers - sufficient for a console boot to
> > > ramdisk. These will includer timer, gpio, i2c drivers.
> > > After this basic set, we will proceed with a more comprehensive set
> > > of drivers for the 281XX SoC family.
> >
> > Would not it make more sense to use mach-bcm281xx as a directory name
> > instead
> > of mach-bcm which sounds a tad too generic? This would also make it
> > consistent
> > with Domenico's mach-bcm47xx and the existing bcm47xx and bcm63xx
> > MIPS-based
> > SoC support.
> >
> 
> I'm following the other mobile ARM SoCs which all have a single mach-
> directory for various families of chips (mach-tegra, mach-omap2, etc...).
> Plus the intent is to have a single set of mach files that works across bcm
> SoCs, so it is preferable to keep it in a single mach-bcm.

Your argument does not make sense here, if I follow your point, these
directories should have been named mach-nvidia or mach-ti respectively if I 
follow your convention (you use the vendor name, not a commercial product name)

I do understand your intent, yet you announce support for BCM281xx SoCs, and
one of your dtsi file is bcm281xx.dtsi. At least something like mach-bcmmobile
sounds better to me.

We have had the inclusion of the "socfpga" platform which is already very
badly named because it does not make it clear that it is an Altera platform and
not some generic SoC + FPGA platform.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.
-- 
Florian