Hi Mr. Kang, On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Minkyu Kang <mk7.k...@samsung.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 18/04/16 23:11, Thomas Abraham wrote: >> Hi Mr. Kang, >> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Minkyu Kang <mk7.k...@samsung.com> wrote: >>> Dear Thomas Abraham, >>> >>> On 13/04/16 19:43, Thomas Abraham wrote: >>>> From: Thomas Abraham <thomas...@samsung.com> >>>> >>>> The existing Exynos 32-bit platform support needs to be realigned in >>>> order to support newer 64-bit Exynos platforms. The driver model will >>>> be utlized for drivers on the 64-bit Exynos platforms and so some of >>>> the older platform support code would not be required for the newer >>>> 64-bit Exynos platforms. >>>> >>>> Cc: Minkyu Kang <mk7.k...@samsung.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Abraham <thomas...@samsung.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/Kconfig | 1 - >>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 14 ++++++++++++++ >>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/Makefile | 7 +++++-- >>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/cpu.h | 2 +- >>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/gpio.h | 2 +- >>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/soc.c | 2 ++ >>>> 6 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig >>>> index b82ec18..ee22a3c 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig >>>> @@ -426,7 +426,6 @@ config TARGET_BCMNSP >>>> >>>> config ARCH_EXYNOS >>>> bool "Samsung EXYNOS" >>>> - select CPU_V7 >>>> select DM >>>> select DM_SPI_FLASH >>>> select DM_SERIAL >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig >>>> index a6a7597..acab947 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig >>>> @@ -7,30 +7,38 @@ choice >>>> config TARGET_SMDKV310 >>>> select SUPPORT_SPL >>>> bool "Exynos4210 SMDKV310 board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> select OF_CONTROL >>>> >>>> config TARGET_TRATS >>>> bool "Exynos4210 Trats board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> >>>> config TARGET_S5PC210_UNIVERSAL >>>> bool "EXYNOS4210 Universal C210 board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> >>>> config TARGET_ORIGEN >>>> bool "Exynos4412 Origen board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> select SUPPORT_SPL >>>> >>>> config TARGET_TRATS2 >>>> bool "Exynos4412 Trat2 board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> >>>> config TARGET_ODROID >>>> bool "Exynos4412 Odroid board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> >>>> config TARGET_ODROID_XU3 >>>> bool "Exynos5422 Odroid board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> select OF_CONTROL >>>> >>>> config TARGET_ARNDALE >>>> bool "Exynos5250 Arndale board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> select CPU_V7_HAS_NONSEC >>>> select CPU_V7_HAS_VIRT >>>> select SUPPORT_SPL >>>> @@ -38,32 +46,38 @@ config TARGET_ARNDALE >>>> >>>> config TARGET_SMDK5250 >>>> bool "SMDK5250 board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> select SUPPORT_SPL >>>> select OF_CONTROL >>>> >>>> config TARGET_SNOW >>>> bool "Snow board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> select SUPPORT_SPL >>>> select OF_CONTROL >>>> >>>> config TARGET_SPRING >>>> bool "Spring board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> select SUPPORT_SPL >>>> select OF_CONTROL >>>> select SPL_DISABLE_OF_CONTROL >>>> >>>> config TARGET_SMDK5420 >>>> bool "SMDK5420 board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> select SUPPORT_SPL >>>> select OF_CONTROL >>>> >>>> config TARGET_PEACH_PI >>>> bool "Peach Pi board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> select SUPPORT_SPL >>>> select OF_CONTROL >>>> >>>> config TARGET_PEACH_PIT >>>> bool "Peach Pit board" >>>> + select CPU_V7 >>>> select SUPPORT_SPL >>>> select OF_CONTROL >>> >>> I think it's better to split to new architecture type for 64bit exynos >>> platform - ARCH_EXYNOS64? >>> What do you think? >> >> I was infact thinking to avoid adding a new ARCH type as much as >> possible and reuse ARCH_EXYNOS for 64-bit as well. Eventually, the >> code in mach-exynos has to move into respective driver folders >> (atleast for ARM64 platforms) and have as little as possible in >> mach-exynos directory. > > I understood what you want. > But I think, we can reuse mach-exynos code even if we make new ARCH type. > And the cpu type should have a dependency with ARCH, not boards. > I don't believe that we should add a cpu type to every boards. > Please consider again.
Ok, I understand your point. There is one more approach without adding a new ARCH_EXYNOS64. This will be posted in the next version of the patch. I hope that would resolve the concern here. Thanks, Thomas. > > Thanks, > Minkyu Kang. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
