one last thing, since we are moving SoC code out of the board tree. would you prefer each SoC specific header directly in top level include directory or within nclude/cortina subdirectory? i.e. include/ca7774.h vs include/cortina/ca7774.h?
> On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:42 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 06:34:40PM +0000, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: > >> Sounds good Tom. We will send the next series with the ARMv8 low_level.S >> moved to arch/mach-caxxxx/ >> Thanks for you guidance. Did you see anything else in 2nd series that needs >> modified before we send >> series 3 or can we assume those are fine to avoid sending another series >> after this issues is fixed in series 3? > > That was all I noticed, thanks again. > >> >>> On Jan 24, 2020, at 10:30 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 05:55:29PM +0000, Alex Nemirovsky wrote: >>>> Looking inside >>>> grep -h CA board/cortina/common/armv8/lowlevel_init.S >>>> #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA7774) >>>> #if defined(CONFIG_SOC_CA8277B) >>>> >>>> as we understand it, the alternative would lead to maintaining duplicate >>>> but slightly different code for each ARM based SoC in >>>> arch/arm/mach-ca7774 >>>> arch/arm/mach-ca8277B >>>> arch/arm/mach-ca7742 >>>> arch/arm/mach-ca8279 >>>> arch/arm/mach-caXnnn >>>> >>>> correct? or should we simply create a arch/arm/mach-caxxxx, >>>> arch/mips/mach-caxxxx, arch/xtensa/mach-axxxx, arch/riscv/mach-caxxxx, >>>> etc to maintain similar >>>> changes to each arch related custom code which varies slightly for each >>>> SoC variation within each architecture? >>>> What’s best to avoid maintaining duplicate code across SoC variations >>>> within the same ISA family? >>> >>> I would hope we can get by with arch/arm/mach-caxxxx or so and >>> board/cortina/common/. How are you handling common code in the linux >>> kernel? >>> >>> -- >>> Tom >> > > -- > Tom
