Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 04/21] ARM: tegra: collect SoC sources into mach-tegra
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:11:46AM +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: Hi Stephen, On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:40:57 -0700 Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote: On 01/24/2015 11:11 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: This commit moves files as follows: arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra20/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra20/* arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra30/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra30/* ... Bikeshed: I know that this matches what the Linux kernel has for 32-bit ARM, but I've always disliked using the word machine to describe an SoC. Would just tegra or soc-tegra be better than mach-tegra? Feel free to entirely ignore this though; I don't feel too strongly. In hindsight, arch/arm/soc-* would have been clearer than arch/arm/mach-*. However, we are already familiar with this directory name convention, so machine looks OK to me. Oh and one more thing: We're starting to work on 64-bit Tegra support in the Linux kernel. A fair amount of the code moved by this patch is likely to apply on both 32-bit and 64-bit Tegra. Will arch/arm support 64-bit within U-Boot, or will there be a separate directory for 32- and 64-bit ARM? If so, should this code all be moved to something more like soc/tegra/... or drivers/tegra/... or drivers/soc/tegra/... or ... so it can be shared between the architectures? We had a hot discussion when aarch64 support was introduced to U-Boot. Finally, the community chose arch/arm/cpu/armv8/ rather than arch/arm64/, i.e. single-arch-directory. And I suspect that at some point we'll also end up moving things from arch/ into drivers/soc/ to mirror the kernel as well. But I still think arch/arm for both is the right direction :) -- Tom signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 04/21] ARM: tegra: collect SoC sources into mach-tegra
On Mon 2015-01-26 10:40:57, Stephen Warren wrote: On 01/24/2015 11:11 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: This commit moves files as follows: arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra20/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra20/* arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra30/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra30/* ... Bikeshed: I know that this matches what the Linux kernel has for 32-bit ARM, but I've always disliked using the word machine to describe an SoC. Would just tegra or soc-tegra be better than mach-tegra? Feel free to entirely ignore this though; I don't feel too strongly. Please keep it consistent with Linux. Pavel -- (english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek (cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 04/21] ARM: tegra: collect SoC sources into mach-tegra
Hi Stephen, On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:40:57 -0700 Stephen Warren swar...@wwwdotorg.org wrote: On 01/24/2015 11:11 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: This commit moves files as follows: arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra20/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra20/* arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra30/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra30/* ... Bikeshed: I know that this matches what the Linux kernel has for 32-bit ARM, but I've always disliked using the word machine to describe an SoC. Would just tegra or soc-tegra be better than mach-tegra? Feel free to entirely ignore this though; I don't feel too strongly. In hindsight, arch/arm/soc-* would have been clearer than arch/arm/mach-*. However, we are already familiar with this directory name convention, so machine looks OK to me. Oh and one more thing: We're starting to work on 64-bit Tegra support in the Linux kernel. A fair amount of the code moved by this patch is likely to apply on both 32-bit and 64-bit Tegra. Will arch/arm support 64-bit within U-Boot, or will there be a separate directory for 32- and 64-bit ARM? If so, should this code all be moved to something more like soc/tegra/... or drivers/tegra/... or drivers/soc/tegra/... or ... so it can be shared between the architectures? We had a hot discussion when aarch64 support was introduced to U-Boot. Finally, the community chose arch/arm/cpu/armv8/ rather than arch/arm64/, i.e. single-arch-directory. Best Regards Masahiro Yamada ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 04/21] ARM: tegra: collect SoC sources into mach-tegra
Hi Masahiro, On 24 January 2015 at 23:11, Masahiro Yamada yamad...@jp.panasonic.com wrote: This commit moves files as follows: arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra20/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra20/* arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra30/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra30/* arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra114/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra114/* arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra124* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra124/* arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra-common/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/* arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra20/*- arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra20/* arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra30/*- arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra30/* arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra114/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra114/* arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra124/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra124/* arch/arm/cpu/armv7/tegra-common/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/* arch/arm/cpu/tegra20-common/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra20/* arch/arm/cpu/tegra30-common/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra30/* arch/arm/cpu/tegra114-common/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra114/* arch/arm/cpu/tegra124-common/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra124/* arch/arm/cpu/tegra-common/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/* Signed-off-by: Masahiro Yamada yamad...@jp.panasonic.com Cc: Stephen Warren swar...@nvidia.com Cc: Tom Warren twar...@nvidia.com Cc: Simon Glass s...@chromium.org Tested on nyan-big (yes I know this is just a build change but I couldn't resist) Tested-by: Simon Glass s...@chromium.org Regards, Simon ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
Re: [U-Boot] [RFC PATCH 04/21] ARM: tegra: collect SoC sources into mach-tegra
On 01/24/2015 11:11 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote: This commit moves files as follows: arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra20/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra20/* arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra30/* - arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra30/* ... Bikeshed: I know that this matches what the Linux kernel has for 32-bit ARM, but I've always disliked using the word machine to describe an SoC. Would just tegra or soc-tegra be better than mach-tegra? Feel free to entirely ignore this though; I don't feel too strongly. Oh and one more thing: We're starting to work on 64-bit Tegra support in the Linux kernel. A fair amount of the code moved by this patch is likely to apply on both 32-bit and 64-bit Tegra. Will arch/arm support 64-bit within U-Boot, or will there be a separate directory for 32- and 64-bit ARM? If so, should this code all be moved to something more like soc/tegra/... or drivers/tegra/... or drivers/soc/tegra/... or ... so it can be shared between the architectures? ___ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
