Hi Sascha. On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 08:53:24AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 06:37:08PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > Hi Sascha, > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:30:22PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > I am working on making it possible to build support for multiple > > > arch/arm/mach-*/ into the same barebox. Here are some misc cleanups > > > I stumbled upon while preparing multi arch support. > > > > > > Sascha Hauer (9): > > > ARM: mxs: remove unused mach/clock.h > > > ARM: imx: remove unused mach/clock.h > > > ARM: rockchip: drop mach/timer.h > > > ARM: i.MX: Move imxfb.h to include/platform_data/ > > > pinctrl: rockchip: Fix uninitialized var warning > > > ARM: at91: remove unnecessary configs > > > ARM: at91: Switch all boards to multiimage > > > at91: consolidate usb-a963 128m images > > > ARM: pxa: Move plat/ include files to mach/ > > > > As much as I like the patches I think a more sane course of > > action for these old at91 boards would be to drop most of them. > > Agreed, and you just motivated me to look into it. > > > A simple algorithm would be: > > If not supported in the kernel, drop the board. > > That algorithm doesn't bring us very far. Here is a list of boards > supported in barebox, the 'x' add the beginning denotes that I > found a device tree for it in the kernel: > > AT91RM9200 > ========== > x MACH_AT91RM9200EK Atmel AT91RM9200-EK Evaluation Kit > > AT91SAM9260 > =========== > x MACH_ANIMEO_IP Somfy Animeo IP > x MACH_AT91SAM9260EK Atmel AT91SAM9260-EK > x MACH_QIL_A9260 CALAO QIL-A9260 board > x MACH_TNY_A9260 CALAO TNY-A9260 > x MACH_USB_A9260 CALAO USB-A9260 > MACH_GE863 Telit EVK-PRO3 > > AT91SAM9261 > =========== > x MACH_AT91SAM9261EK Atmel AT91SAM9261-EK Evaluation Kit > MACH_PM9261 Ronetix PM9261 > > AT91SAM9G10 > =========== > x MACH_AT91SAM9G10EK Atmel AT91SAM9G10-EK Evaluation Kit > > AT91SAM9G20 > =========== > x MACH_AT91SAM9G20EK Atmel AT91SAM9G20-EK Evaluation Kit > x MACH_TNY_A9G20 CALAO TNY-A9G20 > x MACH_USB_A9G20 CALAO USB-A9G20 > MACH_DSS11 aizo dSS11 > MACH_QIL_A9G20 CALAO QIL-A9G20 board > MACH_HABA_KNX_LITE CALAO HABA-KNX-LITE > > AT91SAM9263 > =========== > MACH_PM9263 Ronetix PM9263 > x MACH_TNY_A9263 CALAO TNY-A9263 > x MACH_USB_A9263 CALAO USB-A9263 > > AT91SAM9G45 or AT91SAM9M10 > ========================== > MACH_AT91SAM9M10IHD Atmel AT91SAM9M10IDH Tablet > x MACH_AT91SAM9M10G45EK Atmel AT91SAM9M10G45-EK Evaluation Kit > x MACH_PM9G45 Ronetix PM9G45 > > AT91SAM9N12 > =========== > x MACH_AT91SAM9N12EK Atmel AT91SAM9N12 Evaluation Kit > > SAMA5D3 > ======= > x MACH_SAMA5D3XEK Atmel SAMA5D3X Evaluation Kit > > SAMA5D4 > ======= > x MACH_SAMA5D4EK Atmel SAMA5D4 Evaluation Kit > x MACH_SAMA5D4_XPLAINED Atmel SAMA5D4 XPLAINED ULTRA Evaluation Kit > > It seems most boards are supported in the kernel as well. Looking closer what I remembered was the removal of the legacy board support - as the boards all became DT enabled. > > > > > The boards that are not in the kernel have not seen any > > activity in barebox for a long time, so it is not like > > they look maintained. > > None of the boards has seen any activity except for those that are > already converted to multiboard. > > Given that we could remove all board and SoC support that has > not yet been converted to multiboard support. > > The question is: When you want to port over some more board/SoC code > to multiboard, does the existing code help you or would it be easier > to do a fresh start? If I for some reasons should look into adding DT support for a board, I would have no trouble browsing some older barebox tree. But I cannot see anyone would care about the older at91sam9* boards. Keep the sama* boards but drop the at91sam* boards that are not multi image enabled today. If someone shows up and needs one of the at91sam* boards it should be doable to add DT support as the infrastructure is in place. But I cannot find the motivation to do so today, as I do not see any potential users. For the sama* boards Ahmed does a fantastic job migrating them one by one so we should keep all of them. This is also a much newer SoC than the at91sam* so there are products using this SoC where it can make sense to do some new development. Makes sense? Sam
