[U-Boot-Users] Re: nomen est omen: i.MX or mc9329 ?

[Steven Scholz <steven.scholz@imc-berlin.de>]

Robert Schwebel wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 09:19:13AM +0200, llandre wrote:
> 
>>>>>how will we call the Motorola i.MX processors in future?
>>>>>
>>>>>Will it be "imx", "i.MX", "iMX" or MC9328MX{1,21,L}?
>>>>
>>>>The original 2.4 Linux port was mx1ads which is definitely wrong: it is
>>>>the name of the Motorola development board. Following the scheme of the
>>>>other architectures and platforms I would vote for imx.
>>>
>>>Following the scheme of the other architectures and platforms _and_ 
>>>speaking as a hardware developer I would vote for MC9328MX...
>>>Or at least "iMX".
>>
>>I vote for MC9328MX{1,21,L}.
> 
> 
> Stop - we have to differentiate between the "machine type" (which is
> imx) and the _implementation_ (which could be something like M9328MXL)
> and the "board" (M83281ADS). 
> 
> What about this: 
> 
> 	"machine type" (arch/arm/mach-xxx in Linux nomenclature): imx
> 	"implementation" (asm/arm/arch-xxx/yyy.h): MC9328MXL
> 	"board": M83281ADS

Hmm. I was talking about the cpu/ directory in U-Boot...

Altough the MC9328 has an ARM9 core I think we should create a new 
cpu/mc9328 (or cpu/iMX) directory and put the driver code for integrated 
peripherals (as UARTs etc.) into that directory.
This is done for loads of other CPUs. Just search for '*serial*' or '*fec*' 
in cpu/.

As for Linux I think you're right. But we don't have mach-xxx nor arch-xxx 
in U-Boot, do we?

--
Steven