On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 07:48:00AM +0200, Jean-Francois Moine wrote: > On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 22:07:05 +0200 > Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Let me know what you think, > > > > > > I don't see the interest to have common code for 32bits and 64bits. > > > The clock driver of a SoC will never evolve, so, it is simpler to > > > copy the source common with the H3 into a clean A64 clock driver. > > > > I'm not sure why 32 bits vs 64 bits matters here. We're going to share > > a significant number of drivers already between armv7 and armv8, like > > MMC, EMAC, I2C, and so on. > > > > And I expect to share the data in other SoCs for the A10, A13 and A20 > > for example, or A23/A33, which have a lot of clocks in common too. > > The interest of your sunxi-ng approach is that the clocks of each SoC > is described in one file. Here you are mixing 2 SoCs in the same source > file. The advantage is lost. Because (and only because) the huge majority of those clocks are shared between these SoCs. If it differs in a significant way (like for the A31 that is currently submitted), there's of course no reason to merge it in the same file. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
