From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:38:20 +0100 Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/3] base board consolidation In-Reply-To: References: <20110701094403.GT11559@pengutronix.de> <20110704082722.GM21898@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20110704103820.GC8286@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 12:20:08PM +0200, Daniel Mack wrote: > Yes, I would also much more like to see these boards being supported > by DT, and eventually, we can probably provide static tree definitions > for these boards and get rid of the whole code entirely. While some of that can be done, I think the idea of getting rid of all the code is a pipedream - things like detecting the LCD panel is something which has to be in code. Having separate DT blobs because you happen to have connected a different LCD display is not sane when you can detect the LCD type at run time - from either the support perspective or the maintainence perspective. There's also a similar issue where the ethernet controller may be of two different types, which can only be detected at runtime - and again having different DT blobs would be a nightmare. With that alone, you're talking about 10 different DT blobs (5 different CLCD panel configs + 2 ethernet configs) for just one Realview board. There's also the matter of the platform specific registers setting the clock speed for the SP804 timers. So no, I don't think that we'll ever get rid of all the code for ARMs development platforms without losing functionality/utility, but we should be able to get rid of quite an amount like I've already done by consolidating across the entire set with plat-versatile.