Le vendredi 01 février 2008 à 00:24 +0100, Ulf Samuelsson a écrit : > > Signed-off-by: Stelian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > --- > > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/Makefile | 46 ++++++++++ > > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/config.mk | 2 + > > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/ether.c | 35 ++++++++ > > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/lowlevel_init.S | 43 +++++++++ > > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/spi.c | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/timer.c | 149 > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > cpu/arm926ejs/at91cap9/usb.c | 54 ++++++++++++ > > cpu/arm926ejs/interrupts.c | 2 +- > > cpu/arm926ejs/start.S | 3 + > > How much is different from the Atmel AT91SAM926x U-Boot patches on > www.linux4sam.org?
Quite different. The AT91SAM926x U-Boot patches are against u-boot-1.1.5 uses a lot of "local" drivers, whereas the AT91CAP9 port reuses the existing in-tree drivers where possible (for ethernet, NOR flash, etc) > The CAP9 is very similar to the AT91SAM9263. Yes, it is. > Should those chips share drivers? They do, but those drivers are also common to other cpus (the ethernet is also used by avr32). So the place for those drivers is under drivers/ more than in a common at91cap/sam cpu/ directory. > Then it would be better to store the files in "cpu/arm926ejs/at91sam926x" Maybe. Or maybe the whole cpu/ separation should be rethink (for example, if a port for the AT91CAP7 - which very similar to the AT91CAP9 except for the ARM7TDMI core - is to be done, where should it go ? Maybe the cpu and the soc elements should be separated. Stelian. -- Stelian Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ U-Boot-Users mailing list U-Boot-Users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users
