Re: [PATCH 1/2] spl: Introduce architecture specific init function

[Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>]

On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:33:16 -0400
Tom Rini <trini@konsulko.com> wrote:

Hi,

> On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 08:52:30PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
> > Hi Tom, Lukas,
> > 
> > Thanks for the patch Lukas.
> > 
> > On 20/03/24 20:00, Tom Rini wrote:  
> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 02:19:26PM +0100, lukas.funke-oss@weidmueller.com wrote:
> > >   
> > >> From: Lukas Funke <lukas.funke@weidmueller.com>
> > >>
> > >> Some architectures use spl_board_init() in their architecture specific
> > >> implementation. Board developers should be able to add board specific
> > >> implementation via spl_board_init(). Hence, introduce a spl_arch_init()
> > >> method which is called right before spl_board_init() for architecture
> > >> specific implementation.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Lukas Funke <lukas.funke@weidmueller.com>  
> > > 
> > > I think this could allow for other SoCs to clean up their existing  
> > 
> > Does it make more sense to make this SoC specific then instead of arch
> > specific to allow broader range of code?  
> 
> "soc" and "arch" are somewhat interchangeable at times, so I think we

Isn't "arch" ambiguous anyway? I connect that with CPU architecture, as in
x86, ARM, RISC-V. And we have that in the top level directories: arch/arm,
etc.
But here it's one level below, isn't it? Where "platform" (or "plat")
would be a more suiting term to describe a SoC family, like xilinx or
sunxi?
So the hierarchy would be really: arch -> plat -> soc -> board?

Or am I confused here?

Cheers,
Andre


> can go one step at a time here and bring in this abstraction and see
> where everyone else is able to clean their code up to.
>