From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:47:25 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 03/10] sunxi: Introduce a hidden ARCH_SUN6I Kconfig bool In-Reply-To: References: <1429027621-19252-1-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <1429027621-19252-3-git-send-email-hdegoede@redhat.com> <552E14DC.60101@redhat.com> <552E1C34.1090401@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1429127245.5660.21.camel@hellion.org.uk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Wed, 2015-04-15 at 10:45 +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote: > It is not obvious which MACH_SUN?I are ARCH_SUN6I derived. So if you > can come up with a descriptive name for 'a number of things in common, > such as having separate ahb reset registers in the ccm' that's fine > otherwise this obfuscates the code, not clarifies. I don't particularly object to the patch but this occurred to me too. I suppose the rule is "first sunxi to look this way". How about we call groups of similar SoCs a "generation", i.e. ARCH_SUNXI_GEN2 is what is called ARCH_SUN6I here, meaning GEN1 would be SUN4/5/7I. I've deliberately not considered SUN1/2/3I since I don't know much about them, and we don't support them AFAIK, but perhaps the generation numbers I've picked should be larger to accommodate them. Ian.