Hi, On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Marek Vasut <marek.va...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sunday 06 November 2011 07:39:56 Marek Vasut wrote: >> > > On Saturday 05 November 2011 21:16:23 Marek Vasut wrote: >> > > > This patch should allow a CPU to register it's own cache ops. This >> > > > shall allow multiple CPUs with different cache handlings to be >> > > > supported. >> > > >> > > sorry, what's the point ? this would make sense if you wanted to build >> > > one u- boot image to run on multiple SoCs, but since that doesn't make >> > > sense, i don't see what this patch gets you. >> > >> > Well that's the ultimate goal, isn't it ... >> >> is it actually ? i must have missed the memo.
It's actually a lot more than cache ops. SOCs have there own clock stuff, pinmux things, power mgmt, timers and the like. While it might be desirable to provide this feature it is a fair bit of work and we need to be careful not to make things more complex. I would settle for an initial step of getting some sort of unified but simple clock/pinmux support in across all ARM. Anyone interested in that? I mean an API that covers the lot, not an implementation. Also it would be nice to avoid the heavy-weight data structures and strings that Linux has. If we got that far then we could make the interface virtual as Marek has done for caches. On this particular patch, I feel it should be more explicit about L1 cache, which is what I think it deals with. We may want to support L2 also through a similar API. And a CONFIG option is a good idea. Finally, even the CP15/cache/MMU code is duplicated in different arch/arm/cpu subdirs. Can we unify this a bit? Regards, Simon >> >> support for multiple-SoC-support-in-a-single-image shouldn't bloat the >> single SoC case. this code seems to do just that. so it sounds like you >> should find a CONFIG name for this setup and start putting everything >> behind that. > > That's a good point indeed. The other question is, if gcc4.6's LTO won't fix > that for us. Surely enough though, we can't rely on that. >> >> maybe something like CONFIG_SYS_MULTI_SOC. > > Yea > >> -mike > > M > _______________________________________________ > U-Boot mailing list > U-Boot@lists.denx.de > http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot > _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
