Hi Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD,
On 06/19/2014 12:31 PM, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
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
After I search the latest Linux kernel code, I don't find the related
information, can you be more specific? A link or some reference code
will be better.
Best Regards,
J.
Best Regards,
Bo Shen
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
