linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ARM ATTEND] arch/arm SoC organization
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 01:33:46 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130802083346.GC7656@atomide.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130731141841.GP5882@titan.lakedaemon.net>

* Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> [130731 07:25]:
> All,
> 
> I'd like to take the opportunity to discuss the layout/config of the arm
> SoCs.  By the time the KS rolls around, we should have at least two or more
> use-cases to present and discuss (mvebu, bcm).
> 
> Between devicetree and multiplatform the concept of board-specific code
> is really disappearing in arm-land.  eg mach-kirkwood/ is almost fully
> converted, within the next window or two, we'll be moving all of the DT
> capable boards from kirkwood, orion5x, and dove over to mvebu.
> mach-mvebu will then hold 5 different SoCs (it already has Armada 370
> and Armada XP).
> 
> mach-bcm is in a similar situation (multi-SoC).  I'm sure there are
> others (nvidia, ti, etc).

Well we've pretty much always kept the omaps we can build together in
the same directory, otherwise we would be up to an insane number of
mach-omap related directories by now.. I think getting rid of the
mach- and plat- directories and making everything into drivers is
the next phase after device tree conversion is done.

> So, I'd like to propose we discuss some lessons learned and maybe arrive
> at some best practices.  eg, should we just go with mach-$COMPANY/?  How
> best to handle config symbols for efficient building?  Deprecation path
> for legacy (unconverted) boards?

A lot of that problem goes away by initializing everything as late
as possible, and making things to live under drivers. Of course it
may make sense to combine things meanwhile, but renaming things causes
quite a bit of churn.
 
> Also, to head off the demons, I am *not* proposing reorganizing
> everything.  Merely to find some consensus and good ideas so that as
> things merge together, we are mostly on the same page.
> 
> I'm sure we all have different ideas and I think it'd be good to hear
> what everyone else is thinking.

Yes sharing experiences on this stuff would be good de-briefing and
could help others :)

Regards,

Tony

  reply	other threads:[~2013-08-02  8:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-31 14:18 [ARM ATTEND] arch/arm SoC organization Jason Cooper
2013-08-02  8:33 ` Tony Lindgren [this message]
2013-08-02 23:06   ` [Ksummit-2013-discuss] " Christian Daudt
2013-08-03  5:24     ` Olof Johansson
2013-08-06 22:57       ` Christian Daudt
2013-08-05  6:21     ` Tony Lindgren
2013-08-06 23:07       ` Christian Daudt
2013-08-07  6:57         ` Tony Lindgren

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130802083346.GC7656@atomide.com \
    --to=tony@atomide.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).