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
