From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Aneesh V <aneesh@ti.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2011 19:32:52 +0530
Subject: [U-Boot] [RFC] Long term ARM ISA/cpu/core code organization
In-Reply-To: <4E660765.8000204@aribaud.net>
References: <1313033257-19847-1-git-send-email-hong.xu@atmel.com>
	<1315252207.5146.2.camel@konomi> <4E65BB6E.9090600@aribaud.net>
	<201109060840.57653.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
	<4E660765.8000204@aribaud.net>
Message-ID: <4E67798C.2010600@ti.com>
List-Id: <u-boot.lists.denx.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de

Hi Albert,

On Tuesday 06 September 2011 05:13 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> (splitting this discussion between the patch question and longer term

[snip ...]

>>> To sum it up, we would have
>>>
>>> arch/arm/isa/armv5 (where ARMv5t ISA common code would reside, including
>>> cache ops)
>>>
>>> arch/arm/isa/armv5/arm926ejs (where ARM926EJ-S cpu common code would
>>> reside, including cache ops)
>>>
>>> arch/arm/isa/armv5/arm926ejs/orion5x (a personal favorite :) where
>>> Orion5x core code would reside, including cache ops)
>>>
>>> Maybe we could even make do without the .../isa/... level and put ISAs
>>> directly under ARM -- I don't think any ARM ISA will ever be named
>>> 'include' or 'lib' or 'Makefile'. :)
>>>
>>> Comments?

Here is a rather wild thought. I am not sure whether we can do such a
thing for ARM alone. Just ideating:-)

arch/arm/cpu/<isa>/<cpu>
arch/arm/soc/<soc-family>/<soc>

Reasoning:
1. SoCs in same SoC family typically share/can-share a lot of code.
2. SoCs in same SoC family need not necessarily have the same cpu.
Usually a new SoC brings in a new CPU while maintaining a lot of
peripheral IPs from the previous generation.

best regards,
Aneesh