From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Masahiro Yamada Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 11:11:46 +0900 Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 04/21] ARM: tegra: collect SoC sources into mach-tegra In-Reply-To: <54C67C29.3040401@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1422166283-20822-5-git-send-email-yamada.m@jp.panasonic.com> <54C67C29.3040401@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <20150128111146.EDD3.AA925319@jp.panasonic.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Hi Stephen, On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:40:57 -0700 Stephen Warren wrote: > On 01/24/2015 11:11 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > This commit moves files as follows: > > > > arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra20/* -> arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra20/* > > arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra30/* -> arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra30/* > ... > > Bikeshed: I know that this matches what the Linux kernel has for 32-bit ARM, but I've always disliked using the word "machine" to describe an SoC. Would just "tegra" or "soc-tegra" be better than "mach-tegra"? Feel free to entirely ignore this though; I don't feel too strongly. In hindsight, arch/arm/soc-* would have been clearer than arch/arm/mach-*. However, we are already familiar with this directory name convention, so "machine" looks OK to me. > > Oh and one more thing: We're starting to work on 64-bit Tegra support in the Linux kernel. A fair amount of the code moved by this patch is likely to apply on both 32-bit and 64-bit Tegra. Will arch/arm support 64-bit within U-Boot, or will there be a separate directory for 32- and 64-bit ARM? If so, should this code all be moved to something more like soc/tegra/... or drivers/tegra/... or drivers/soc/tegra/... or ... so it can be shared between the architectures? We had a hot discussion when aarch64 support was introduced to U-Boot. Finally, the community chose arch/arm/cpu/armv8/ rather than arch/arm64/, i.e. single-arch-directory. Best Regards Masahiro Yamada