From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Vasut Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:45:31 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH 50/51] arm: socfpga: Split SoCFPGA configuration In-Reply-To: <20140924153807.GA9563@amd> References: <1411304339-11348-1-git-send-email-marex@denx.de> <20140924153807.GA9563@amd> Message-ID: <201409251645.31967.marex@denx.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 05:38:07 PM, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > From: Pavel Machek > > > > > > Split the SoCFPGA configuration into SoC-specific part which is > > > common for all boards (socfpga_cyclone5_common.h) and a board > > > specific part. There is currently only one board, which is the > > > generic SoCFPGA board (socfpga_cyclone5.h), but there are more > > > to come. > > > > > > This is necessary due to various features of the boards, which > > > unfortunatelly cannot be autodetected. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Marek Vasut > > > Cc: Chin Liang See > > > Cc: Dinh Nguyen > > > Cc: Albert Aribaud > > > Cc: Tom Rini > > > Cc: Wolfgang Denk > > > Cc: Pavel Machek > > > --- > > > > > > include/configs/socfpga_cyclone5.h | 211 > > > ++---------------------------- > > > include/configs/socfpga_cyclone5_common.h | 196 > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 207 insertions(+), 200 > > > deletions(-) > > > create mode 100644 include/configs/socfpga_cyclone5_common.h > > > > Thanks for taking a stab at this, but I think it makes more sense to have > > socfpga_commoh.h and socfpga_cyclone5.h. The _common file can have most > > of the common settings for u-boot, while _cyclone5 will have the base > > addresses for all the various IP blocks. Then once everything is done > > for Cyclone5, we can add support for the Arria5 SOC by just adding > > socfpga_arria5.h. > > socfpga_common.h sounds like a good name. > > But I wonder if socfpga_cyclone5.h should be named > socfpga_cyclone5_socdk.h ? To be consistent with Linux DTB name even ? Might be a good idea, but not for this patch . This patch doesn't introduce any "functional" change either for the build or for the result. Best regards, Marek Vasut