Vipin Kumar wrote: > On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Tom <[email protected]> wrote: >> Vipin Kumar wrote: >>> Hello Tom, >>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>> +#include <asm/arch/spr_defs.h> >>>>>> +#include <asm/arch/spr_misc.h> >>>>>> +#include <asm/arch/spr_nand.h> >>>>>> + >>>>>> +int board_init(void) >>>>>> +{ >>>>>> + return spear_board_init(MACH_TYPE_SPEAR300); >>>>>> Does this need a new mach type ? >>>>>> I see there isn't a SPEAR310 define in mach-types. >>>>> Actually, spear310 and spear320 are variants of a base version spear300 >>>>> This is why we are using a single mach type >>>>> >>>> Ok. >>>> Then the 310 and 320 board *.c files can be combined into 300 board files >>>> These look like they are copies of the 300 file. >>>> Tom >>>> >>> Please find the patchset v5 for SPEAr support on the mailing list >>> It contains all your suggested changes >>> Please consider it for mainline inclusion >>> >> I see in v5 that the 300,310,320 boards are still in separate files. >> These all look like copies and could be combined. >> >> Do you expect there will be a need in the future to add unique code >> to each of these board files? >> If not, please look into combining them. >> >> I will provide feedback on the other files shortly. >> >> Tom >> > > Although all three are based on one chip but sp300, sp310 and > sp320 are different SoCs and support different IPs. > Yes, board files are copies of each other as of now but may diverge in > future > I would rather create different mach ids rather than combining them > into one.
Ok. Fine to leave them as-is. Tom > > Regards > Vipin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
