Hi Albert, On Tuesday 06 September 2011 05:13 PM, Albert ARIBAUD wrote: > (splitting this discussion between the patch question and longer term
[snip ...] >>> To sum it up, we would have >>> >>> arch/arm/isa/armv5 (where ARMv5t ISA common code would reside, including >>> cache ops) >>> >>> arch/arm/isa/armv5/arm926ejs (where ARM926EJ-S cpu common code would >>> reside, including cache ops) >>> >>> arch/arm/isa/armv5/arm926ejs/orion5x (a personal favorite :) where >>> Orion5x core code would reside, including cache ops) >>> >>> Maybe we could even make do without the .../isa/... level and put ISAs >>> directly under ARM -- I don't think any ARM ISA will ever be named >>> 'include' or 'lib' or 'Makefile'. :) >>> >>> Comments? Here is a rather wild thought. I am not sure whether we can do such a thing for ARM alone. Just ideating:-) arch/arm/cpu/<isa>/<cpu> arch/arm/soc/<soc-family>/<soc> Reasoning: 1. SoCs in same SoC family typically share/can-share a lot of code. 2. SoCs in same SoC family need not necessarily have the same cpu. Usually a new SoC brings in a new CPU while maintaining a lot of peripheral IPs from the previous generation. best regards, Aneesh _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
