On 02/10/2015 01:14 AM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
Hi Tom,
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015 23:56:45 -0700
Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
The bcm2835 and bcm2836 are essentially identical, except:
- The CPU is an ARM1176 v.s. a quad-core Cortex-A7.
- The physical address of many IO controllers has moved.
Rather than introducing a whole new bcm2836 value for $(SOC) or $(ARCH),
update the existing bcm2835 code to handle the minor differences, and
plumb it into the ARMv7 CPU architecture.
[ snip ]
diff --git a/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/bcm2835/Makefile
b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/bcm2835/Makefile
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..ed1ee4753d49
--- /dev/null
+++ b/arch/arm/cpu/armv7/bcm2835/Makefile
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+#
+# (C) Copyright 2012 Stephen Warren
+#
+# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0+
+#
+
+src_dir := ../../arm1176/bcm2835/
+
+obj-y :=
+obj-y += $(src_dir)/init.o
+obj-y += $(src_dir)/reset.o
+obj-y += $(src_dir)/timer.o
+obj-y += $(src_dir)/mbox.o
Tom,
Here is another proof that the arch/$(ARCH)/cpu/$(CPU)/$(SOC) structure is
wrong.
BCM2836 crib most of the source files from BCM2835
but they must be placed separetely because of the difference of the main
processor.
Could you tell me your impression about my RFC series?
(Anyway, it is already out-dated. I can rebase if you like.)
FWIW, I did wonder about basing my patches on top of your directory
re-org. However, since it was (IIRC) an RFC, I shied away from that for now.
Of course, we can merge arch/arm/cpu/arm1176/bcm2835 and
arch/arm/cpu/armv7/bcm2836
into arch/arm/mach-bcm lator.
mach-bcm2835 or mach-bcm283x would likely be better than mach-bcm, since
there are various other lines of Broadcom SoCs (some already supported
in U-Boot), and I have no particular reason to believe they share design
with the bcm2835/6.
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
