On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 06:58:13PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote:
> one last thing, since we are moving SoC code out of the board tree.
> would you prefer each SoC specific header directly in top level
> include directory or within nclude/cortina subdirectory? i.e.
> include/ca7774.h vs
one last thing, since we are moving SoC code out of the board tree. would you
prefer each SoC specific header directly in top level include directory or
within nclude/cortina subdirectory? i.e. include/ca7774.h vs
include/cortina/ca7774.h?
> On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:42 AM, Tom Rini wrote:
>
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 06:34:40PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote:
> Sounds good Tom. We will send the next series with the ARMv8 low_level.S
> moved to arch/mach-ca/
> Thanks for you guidance. Did you see anything else in 2nd series that needs
> modified before we send
> series 3 or can we
Sounds good Tom. We will send the next series with the ARMv8 low_level.S moved
to arch/mach-ca/
Thanks for you guidance. Did you see anything else in 2nd series that needs
modified before we send
series 3 or can we assume those are fine to avoid sending another series after
this issues is
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:55:29PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote:
> Looking inside
> grep -h CA board/cortina/common/armv8/lowlevel_init.S
> #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA7774)
> #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA8277B)
>
> as we understand it, the alternative would lead to maintaining duplicate but
> slightly
Looking inside
grep -h CA board/cortina/common/armv8/lowlevel_init.S
#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA7774)
#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA8277B)
as we understand it, the alternative would lead to maintaining duplicate but
slightly different code for each ARM based SoC in
arch/arm/mach-ca7774
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:22:50PM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote:
> We have many common features across ISAs and common ARM, MIPS, other ISA
> modification across SoCs. Looking at how this was addressed
> by other silicon vendors who support multiple ISAs, lead to this path. i.e.
> TI,
We have many common features across ISAs and common ARM, MIPS, other ISA
modification across SoCs. Looking at how this was addressed
by other silicon vendors who support multiple ISAs, lead to this path. i.e.
TI, freescale, and others.
./board/BuR/common
./board/xilinx/common
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 10:19:01AM +, Alex Nemirovsky wrote:
>
> Cortina Access management has decided that we want to add formal
> upstream support of u-boot going forward for our line of SoCs
> and evaluation boards.
[snip]
> MAINTAINERS | 18 +++
>
9 matches
Mail list logo
