On 15:19 Mon 16 Jun , Bo Shen wrote: > > Hi Matteo, > > On 06/13/2014 08:48 PM, Matteo Fortini wrote: > >Hi all, > >glad you found my patch useful. Sascha rejected it because he sees it > >more fit to separate the initialization of sama5d3 and sam9 since they > >are quite different. > > > >I started, as advised by Sascha, to create into sam9_smc.c the function > > > >void sama5d3_smc_configure(int id, int cs, struct sama5d3_smc_config > >*config) > > > >but this brings on some other changes to keep the same structure of > >functions, i.e. we would need to implement > > > >static void sama5d3_smc_cs_configure(void __iomem *base, struct > >sama5d3_smc_config *config) > > > >and all the related functions, since the argument changes from struct > >sam9_smc_config * to struct sama5d3_smc_config * > > > >Now I'm asking you all for a comment: should we go ahead and create a > >new sama5d3_smc.c file with all the functions (some will unfortunately > >be a duplicate of those present in sam9_smc.c), or should I do a partial > >hack to insert sama5d3 specific functions into sam9_smc.c (like, for > >example, playing with config structures so that the sam9 one is just the > >head of the sama5d3)? > > I think we'd better to create a new sama5d3_smc.c. This will be more > readable, and also benefit for the new coming SoC. NACK that was raised on the kernel the sam9 & sama5 does does share the IP the a5 just have more features Best Regards, J. > > >Thank you in advance for your comments, I ask Raphaël to wait until this > >patch is settled to send in his changes. They will be very useful for > >me, too (I had to deactivate PMECC to use my NAND...) > > > >M > > Best Regards, > Bo Shen _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
