Dear Albert > -----Original Message----- > From: Albert ARIBAUD [mailto:albert.arib...@free.fr] > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 5:46 PM > To: Prafulla Wadaskar > Subject: Re: [U-Boot] Best way of making some drivers common > across kirkwood and orion5x SoCs? > > Prafulla Wadaskar a écrit : > > > >> Still, the drivers would be full of 'KWxxx" and "kwxxx" symbols of > >> which many are not kirkwood-specific actually. > > > > Any way, those are not even orion specific nor Marvell specific. > > Those are related to the functionality supported by SOCs that may be > > customized by each SOC > > > >> In order for these drivers to compile with an orion5x SoC, I would > >> have to adopt kirkwood names in the > > > > What harm in this? > > I would say it harms maintenability and reuseability of the code. If > those drivers are neither kirkwood- nor even > marvell-specific, then they > should not lead readers to believe they are, otherwise people > might not > realize they can ruse these drivers in their own SoCs. > > >> orion5x code, which I don't like as much as I would like fixing the > >> > > If you see kernel code even there you can see kirkwood call from > > Orion drivers and vice versa. > > > >> symbols to make them marvell-, not kirkwood-, specific. > > > > This will not solve the root problem, what about some non > marvell SoC > > have same h/w and want to reuse the code? Do we again change the > > suffixes? (kirkwood re-used external serial driver adopting external > > definitions). > > Point valid and taken--see my suggestion below. > > > I suggest here to adopt kw symbols in Orion. This would > make it clear > > for anybody that kirkwood code is reused by orion. With > this kirkwood > > drives will be untouched. > > This does not solve the root problem any better than switching to > Marvell prefixes, as you rightly point out. I thus suggest > removing any > Marvell, Kirkwood or Orion prefixes from symbols in these drivers > altogether. For instance, egiga symbols would take EGIGA_ as > a prefix. > Then each SoC (kirkwood, orion5x, any other) header file > would provide > adequate definitions (#define EGIGA_xxxx yyyy).
I understands your concerns- 1. For SOC support Orion should be implemented similar to Kirkwood (you agreed on this) 2. For common drivers for (ex: kirkwood_egiga.c) the common code must be abstracted to egiga_core.c and architecture specific code must be supported through kirkwood_egiga.c/h and orion_egiga.c/h, this way it would make it more clean and structured. > > > While doing this reuse activity, if we find something blocking, > > certainly we should address that, but let's avoid changing identity > > of drivers. > > I personally believe that having the Orion5x SoC dependent of the > kirkwood one is blocking enough from a design standpoint. What is your opinion with #2 suggestion? Regards.. Prafulla . . > > > Regards.. Prafulla . . > > Amicalement, > -- > Albert. > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
