From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 13:20:48 -0600 Subject: [U-Boot] [PATCH v4 11/12] SPEAr : Support added for SPEAr310 board In-Reply-To: <83d1d72b1001160926u61030ddfj2115aeda879ba2db@mail.gmail.com> References: <4B4DCDA6.4010707@windriver.com> <4B4EFCCF.8030305@st.com> <4B4F3E57.9040807@windriver.com> <83d1d72b1001150915g121a1da0t938d98d780fc7292@mail.gmail.com> <4B51D6FD.4050901@windriver.com> <83d1d72b1001160926u61030ddfj2115aeda879ba2db@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B521190.4050709@windriver.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de Vipin Kumar wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Tom wrote: >> Vipin Kumar wrote: >>> Hello Tom, >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> +#include >>>>>> +#include >>>>>> +#include >>>>>> + >>>>>> +int board_init(void) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + return spear_board_init(MACH_TYPE_SPEAR300); >>>>>> Does this need a new mach type ? >>>>>> I see there isn't a SPEAR310 define in mach-types. >>>>> Actually, spear310 and spear320 are variants of a base version spear300 >>>>> This is why we are using a single mach type >>>>> >>>> Ok. >>>> Then the 310 and 320 board *.c files can be combined into 300 board files >>>> These look like they are copies of the 300 file. >>>> Tom >>>> >>> Please find the patchset v5 for SPEAr support on the mailing list >>> It contains all your suggested changes >>> Please consider it for mainline inclusion >>> >> I see in v5 that the 300,310,320 boards are still in separate files. >> These all look like copies and could be combined. >> >> Do you expect there will be a need in the future to add unique code >> to each of these board files? >> If not, please look into combining them. >> >> I will provide feedback on the other files shortly. >> >> Tom >> > > Although all three are based on one chip but sp300, sp310 and > sp320 are different SoCs and support different IPs. > Yes, board files are copies of each other as of now but may diverge in > future > I would rather create different mach ids rather than combining them > into one. Ok. Fine to leave them as-is. Tom > > Regards > Vipin