On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:33:16 -0400 Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote:
Hi, > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 08:52:30PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote: > > Hi Tom, Lukas, > > > > Thanks for the patch Lukas. > > > > On 20/03/24 20:00, Tom Rini wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 02:19:26PM +0100, lukas.funke-...@weidmueller.com > > > wrote: > > > > > >> From: Lukas Funke <lukas.fu...@weidmueller.com> > > >> > > >> Some architectures use spl_board_init() in their architecture specific > > >> implementation. Board developers should be able to add board specific > > >> implementation via spl_board_init(). Hence, introduce a spl_arch_init() > > >> method which is called right before spl_board_init() for architecture > > >> specific implementation. > > >> > > >> Signed-off-by: Lukas Funke <lukas.fu...@weidmueller.com> > > > > > > I think this could allow for other SoCs to clean up their existing > > > > Does it make more sense to make this SoC specific then instead of arch > > specific to allow broader range of code? > > "soc" and "arch" are somewhat interchangeable at times, so I think we Isn't "arch" ambiguous anyway? I connect that with CPU architecture, as in x86, ARM, RISC-V. And we have that in the top level directories: arch/arm, etc. But here it's one level below, isn't it? Where "platform" (or "plat") would be a more suiting term to describe a SoC family, like xilinx or sunxi? So the hierarchy would be really: arch -> plat -> soc -> board? Or am I confused here? Cheers, Andre > can go one step at a time here and bring in this abstraction and see > where everyone else is able to clean their code up to. >
