On 22:38 Tue 31 Mar , Wolfgang Denk wrote: > Dear Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD, > > In message <20090331192117.gf24...@game.jcrosoft.org> you wrote: > > > > > > drivers/usb/Makefile > | 1 + > > > > .../at91/usb.c => drivers/usb/atmel_usb.c | > 0 > > > > rename cpu/arm926ejs/at91/usb.c => drivers/usb/atmel_usb.c (100%) > > > > > > > Same here, this is architecture specific code, why move it to generic > > > cod> e? > > it's the at91 usb drivers and we need to have it in the driver/usb > > Why do we need to have it in the driver/usb ? > > Please explain in detail. > > > and it's not at91/arm926 specific but it's also shared with the at91rm9200 > > > > so I move to drivers usb > > > > please note that the RM9200 will be move to the at91 API next release > > So. Will it. Really? Who discussed this, and where, and when? > Please explain in detail. as I said the usb drivers, spi, serial are shared between at91sam9, rm9200 and some with avr32 so do need to avoid copy and paste to each cpu specialy when it's drivers or IP init not specific to a SOC
The RM9200 is in preparation and will be finished for the next merge window so no patch has been yes published until it's finished Best Regards, J. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
