From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steven Scholz Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 11:31:05 +0200 Subject: [U-Boot-Users] Re: nomen est omen: i.MX or mc9329 ? In-Reply-To: <20040628092036.GB13868@pengutronix.de> References: <40DEAEB4.9090504@imc-berlin.de> <20040627181831.GI21651@pengutronix.de> <40DFC48A.90203@imc-berlin.de> <6.0.1.1.0.20040628091607.01f96570@192.168.2.1> <20040628092036.GB13868@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <40DFE559.5000904@imc-berlin.de> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.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