On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Lukasz Majewski <lu...@denx.de> wrote: > Hi Alexander, > >> Hello Lukasz! >> >> On 17/11/17 00:22, Lukasz Majewski wrote: >> > This patch series adds support for Liebherr's BK3 board, being >> > a derivative of TS72XX design. >> > >> > This patchset consists of following patches: >> > >> > - ts72xx.[c|h] cosmetic cleanup/improvement >> > - Move the common code for ts72xx and BK3 to ts72xx-common.c - this >> > code can be reused by other designs build around ts72xx >> > - The Liebherr's BK3 board has been added with re-using code of >> > ts72xx.c >> > >> > Lukasz Majewski (4): >> > ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Use DEFINE_RES_MEM macros where applicable >> >> The patch 3/4 deletes everything added by patch 1/4, so I don't >> really see the point of it. > > I wanted to first clean up things.
Cleaning it up first is the right approach, a patch that moves code around should not contain any other changes. >> > ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Provide include guards for ts72xx.h file >> > ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Exclude reusable part of the ts72xx board >> > ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board - ts72xx >> > derivative >> >> I tend to agree with Hartley, if you'd just add all BK3-related >> extras to ts72xx.c it would be less than 60 LoCs, you probably even >> do not need new Kconfig options. > > Some Kconfig option would be welcome (MACH_BK3 ?) if it turns out that I > do need to adjust some things later (like change HAMMING NAND ECC to BCH > for plat_nand driver). > > The separate bk3.c file is more appealing (for me) in terms of extending > the code latter. I think keeping everything in one file, but adding a new Kconfig option that uses 'select MACH_TS72XX' to enable the existing board would be simpler, we can split it out later once we think it gets too big. Arnd