From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jason@lakedaemon.net (Jason Cooper)
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:06:55 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] ARM: mvebu: move Armada 370/XP specific
 definitions to armada-370-xp.h
In-Reply-To: <20131226174920.5d404189@skate>
References: <1388046026-332-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
 <1388046026-332-3-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com>
 <20131226160048.GA19323@lunn.ch> <20131226170454.79529766@skate>
 <20131226161806.GC19323@lunn.ch> <20131226174920.5d404189@skate>
Message-ID: <20131227170655.GM19878@titan.lakedaemon.net>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 05:49:20PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Dear Andrew Lunn,
> 
> On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 17:18:06 +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> 
> > > As it is today, none of the contents of armada-370-xp.h are useful for
> > > Armada 370. However, the "main" file is also named armada-370-xp.c and
> > > handles both SoC, so it made sense to have a file named armada-370-xp.h
> > > as well.
> > 
> > Hi Thomas
> > 
> > So thinking about dove, kirkwood, this new SoC, all living in mvebu,
> > should we have a board-dt.c file which all SoCs share, and then one
> > .c/.h pair of files per SoC? I'm saying this without looking at the
> > actual content, so i've no idea is this is actually possible. I guess
> > we need to do something like this sometime, but does it need to be
> > now?
> 
> I think it's a bit hard to see now what will be the common parts. I
> personally would worry too much about this though, as code can easily be
> reorganized as needed as we see patterns emerge and gain a better
> understanding of what's common and what's specific.

I agree.  We need to keep an eye on it, but no need to churn.  The
necessary changes can be made as new code is introduced.

thx,

Jason.