On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:04:41 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > Not yet. There is a strong chance that i will need such a port next > month. If this happens i will be tasked by my employer to make the > port. So if you are doing a port i suggest we work together. Which of > the X peripherals are you interested in? I need an Ethernet driver > which i can connect to lwip.
SPI, UART, EMAC with lwip, probably the same as you do ... > > My current feeling is add support for the X to the existing S. > Handling the ethernet driver should not be a problem. Make a cdl > interface in the AT91 ETH package which any HAL with the required > hardware supports should implement. Same goes for the CAM, and other > bits of hardware the X has but not the S. I agree, the X and the S is close enough to each other that you would be missing out in terms of bug fixes and patches if you split them. > > What may be more of a problem is the two GPIO controllers. The > existing code, var HAL, SPI, USART etc, assumes that the pins they use > are on GPIO port A. If this is not true with the X it might get > messy. We need to compare the S and X and see what is connected where > with respect to the GPIO controllers. This is actually a problem with the existing S port as well, as the alternative peripheral pinouts is not really addressed. This might be a good oppurtunity to devise a proper solution for this if we are forced to. > The other change that will be needed is in the flash driver. It > queries the device ID to see if it is a supported device and how big > the flash is. This will need extending with the ID of the X. Should be straight forward ... (Famous last words) > Otherwise, i think a basic port should be quite easy. Agreed John Eigelaar
