[RFC] arm naming inconsistance

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 17:28 Fri 12 Aug     , Antony Pavlov wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> Barebox has an hierarchy for supported stuff:
> 
>  arch -> mach
> 
>     arch \in {arm, x86, nios2 ...}
> 
>  for arch=arm, mach \in { at91, ims, msx, ... versatile }
> 
>  Also there is the 'board', the lowest level of hierarchy.
> 
>  E.g. for mach=at91, board \in { at91sam9m10g45ek, pm9263 ...}
> 
> But there are strange things in arch/arm/Kconfig and
> arch/arm/cpu/start.c:
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_LOWLEVEL_INIT
>         arch_init_lowlevel();
> #endif
> 
> At the first glance all ok: if arch has lowlevel init, the do
> arch_init_lowlevel().
> But arch_init_lowlevel() is not __per-arch__ function, but
> __per-mach__ function!
> It is used in at91 and omap mach.
> 
> #ifdef CONFIG_MACH_DO_LOWLEVEL_INIT
>         board_init_lowlevel();
> #endif
in at91 I did so because it's really a board init but the init is generic to
the soc so no need to duplicate it

the only difference are the clock and timings basicly

Best Regards,
J.