Sergei Shtylyov <sshtyl...@ru.mvista.com> writes: > David Brownell wrote: > >>>>Either way, the lack of a complete proposal (not necessarily >>>>in the form of patches) makes it hard to get anywhere with >>>>such OMAP-L1xx discussions... > >>>I think I've expressed it clear enough: common shared code is >>>to be moved to plat-davinci/ and OMAP-L1x support is to be >>> added into new mach- directory. > >> And yet Kevin felt that was missing details (not complete)... > >> While that sounds plausible to me at this point, it's also >> clear that the missing details could make a big difference. > > Let us be more clear. What exactly details are needed?
The technical justification for a new mach- + plat- directory. In particular, justification for why extending current code in existing mach-davinci cannot work. So far, in terms of core code (stuff that lives under arch/*) I've heard that the primary differences are - new INTC - additional PSC (but same programming model) - new pinmux layout To me these are hardly justification for a new mach directory. I see relatively simple solutions for these in the current framework. The driver differences can be handled in the board code (platform_*) or in the driver code itself, or by new drivers. It matters less to me how drivers hard done. >> I suspect that until patches appear, discussion can get no >> further. Plus, if it's going to be "mach-omap-L1" it'd >> be good to have enough detail that the OMAP team (and RMK) >> can see why it should pair with "plat-davinci" instead of >> the more obvious "plat-omap". > > Damn that rename again... > Exact marketing names aside... The fact remains that the omap name is a marketing name. The vast majority of the HW IP is shared with the rest of the DaVinci family. I'm not aware of any HW IP shared with OMAP (other than MUSB.) Kevin _______________________________________________ Davinci-linux-open-source mailing list Davinci-linux-open-source@linux.davincidsp.com http://linux.davincidsp.com/mailman/listinfo/davinci-linux-open-source
