From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2016 08:03:28 -0400 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH RFC 5/5] imx: mx6ul: Add initial board support for Engicam GEAM6UL In-Reply-To: References: <1472890977-7377-1-git-send-email-jagan@amarulasolutions.com> <1472890977-7377-5-git-send-email-jagan@amarulasolutions.com> Message-ID: <20160906120328.GD4990@bill-the-cat> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Sun, Sep 04, 2016 at 11:47:06AM -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Sun, Sep 4, 2016 at 10:32 AM, Jagan Teki wrote: > > > Please do read the thread fully before commenting, I've mentioned the > > state of hardware when I relied to Peng. And also this is an RFC patch > > I'm looking for comments on function like changes whether the flow of > > adding code to existing software is meaningful or not and not intended > > to directly applying these onto ML. > > I have already stated my opinion that you should put your board code > into board/engicam. Yes, this sounds right. > > But I prefer to maintain the same on board/freescale/imx6ul. Becuase, > > If the most of the code is common to all boards with specific SOC it's > > better to have common code for reusability instead of adding different > > board files with duplicate code. For example please see board/sunxi or > > board/xilinx/zynq where microzed, zed or zynbo not directly > > manufactured from xilinx but they maintained as common. > > All the ifdefery inside board/sunxi/board.c is exactly what I would > like to avoid here. Now, in fairness to sunxi, that's more like what would happen if you decided to support all of the imx6 and imx7 SoCs in a single board.c. > mx6ul is a recent SoC and there is only mx6ul evk and pico mx6ul > boards currently supported in U-Boot. > > I don't think this can scale to support all upcoming boards into a > single board/freescale/mx6ul/board.c. > > Why is mx6ul special in this case compared to the other mx6 variants? > > Will you be able to support all mx6q boards into > board/freescale/mx6q/board.c as well? > > I am sure this will be unmaintainable. I suspect there's a certain amount of code that should be in arch/arm/mach-imx/board.c like a __weak dram_init() and maybe some ${soc}.c files too for things that really aren't board specific but rather SoC-required. Of course I'm biased since this is how the TI stuff evolved to. But also, if the enigcam board is an example of "take the ref board, cut it down a bit, ship" or even "take the ref board, tweak slightly", there will still be some code duplication as they simply made the same board decisions that NXP did in the reference platform. -- Tom -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: