Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1000819
--- Comment #28 from Daniel Helgason <[email protected]> 2011-05-18 18:19:50 BST --- (In reply to comment #11) > Let's try to push through with review and get it checked in. I've invited all > interested parties to add themselves to the CC list and add their own comment > where necessary/appropriate. > > Evgeniy, the use of multiple patches is a great help - thank you! > > Let's start with the ARM7/ARM9 abstraction work (patch 1). This looks to be a > case of moving the existing HAL cache macros (which are not appropriate for > AT91SAM9) from the AT91 variant package to a new ARM7 package. I assume that > there is nothing AT91-specific in the new package so it could be used by any > other ARM7 ports in the future. Please confirm. > ... Is is correct to have AT91 as a variant? I see it more as a package that defines a set of common I/O and provides macros for common AT91 stuff. Would it make sense if things were arranged more like: ARM (arch) +- ARM7 (variant) + SAM7S (platform) + SAM7X (platform) + Other Non-AT91 chip (platform) + SAM7S-EK (board) + SAM7X-EK (board) ...etc. + ARM9 (variant) + SAM9263 (platform) + SAM9G20 (platform) + SAM9RL64 (platform) + Other Non-AT91 chip (platform) + SAM9G20-EK (board) + SAM99RL-EK (board ...etc. + AT91 (I/O support package) Or maybe I'm just confused about the relationship between arch, var, and plf? If so, could someone please enlighten me. Thanks! In this scheme, the AT91-based platforms define the peripheral IDs, interrupts, etc. that vary from one chip to another. The AT91 I/O package would have absolutely no knowledge of any particular chip. A real advantage to having AT91 be a stand-alone I/O support package is that we could easily support other chips with AT91 peripherals such as Atmel's SAM3 series. Dan H. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
