[PATCH 0/9] ARM: misc cleanups
sam at ravnborg.org
Thu Mar 2 09:01:09 PST 2023
On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 08:53:24AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 06:37:08PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > Hi Sascha,
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:30:22PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > I am working on making it possible to build support for multiple
> > > arch/arm/mach-*/ into the same barebox. Here are some misc cleanups
> > > I stumbled upon while preparing multi arch support.
> > >
> > > Sascha Hauer (9):
> > > ARM: mxs: remove unused mach/clock.h
> > > ARM: imx: remove unused mach/clock.h
> > > ARM: rockchip: drop mach/timer.h
> > > ARM: i.MX: Move imxfb.h to include/platform_data/
> > > pinctrl: rockchip: Fix uninitialized var warning
> > > ARM: at91: remove unnecessary configs
> > > ARM: at91: Switch all boards to multiimage
> > > at91: consolidate usb-a963 128m images
> > > ARM: pxa: Move plat/ include files to mach/
> > As much as I like the patches I think a more sane course of
> > action for these old at91 boards would be to drop most of them.
> Agreed, and you just motivated me to look into it.
> > A simple algorithm would be:
> > If not supported in the kernel, drop the board.
> That algorithm doesn't bring us very far. Here is a list of boards
> supported in barebox, the 'x' add the beginning denotes that I
> found a device tree for it in the kernel:
> x MACH_AT91RM9200EK Atmel AT91RM9200-EK Evaluation Kit
> x MACH_ANIMEO_IP Somfy Animeo IP
> x MACH_AT91SAM9260EK Atmel AT91SAM9260-EK
> x MACH_QIL_A9260 CALAO QIL-A9260 board
> x MACH_TNY_A9260 CALAO TNY-A9260
> x MACH_USB_A9260 CALAO USB-A9260
> MACH_GE863 Telit EVK-PRO3
> x MACH_AT91SAM9261EK Atmel AT91SAM9261-EK Evaluation Kit
> MACH_PM9261 Ronetix PM9261
> x MACH_AT91SAM9G10EK Atmel AT91SAM9G10-EK Evaluation Kit
> x MACH_AT91SAM9G20EK Atmel AT91SAM9G20-EK Evaluation Kit
> x MACH_TNY_A9G20 CALAO TNY-A9G20
> x MACH_USB_A9G20 CALAO USB-A9G20
> MACH_DSS11 aizo dSS11
> MACH_QIL_A9G20 CALAO QIL-A9G20 board
> MACH_HABA_KNX_LITE CALAO HABA-KNX-LITE
> MACH_PM9263 Ronetix PM9263
> x MACH_TNY_A9263 CALAO TNY-A9263
> x MACH_USB_A9263 CALAO USB-A9263
> AT91SAM9G45 or AT91SAM9M10
> MACH_AT91SAM9M10IHD Atmel AT91SAM9M10IDH Tablet
> x MACH_AT91SAM9M10G45EK Atmel AT91SAM9M10G45-EK Evaluation Kit
> x MACH_PM9G45 Ronetix PM9G45
> x MACH_AT91SAM9N12EK Atmel AT91SAM9N12 Evaluation Kit
> x MACH_SAMA5D3XEK Atmel SAMA5D3X Evaluation Kit
> x MACH_SAMA5D4EK Atmel SAMA5D4 Evaluation Kit
> x MACH_SAMA5D4_XPLAINED Atmel SAMA5D4 XPLAINED ULTRA Evaluation Kit
> It seems most boards are supported in the kernel as well.
Looking closer what I remembered was the removal of the legacy board
support - as the boards all became DT enabled.
> > The boards that are not in the kernel have not seen any
> > activity in barebox for a long time, so it is not like
> > they look maintained.
> None of the boards has seen any activity except for those that are
> already converted to multiboard.
> Given that we could remove all board and SoC support that has
> not yet been converted to multiboard support.
> The question is: When you want to port over some more board/SoC code
> to multiboard, does the existing code help you or would it be easier
> to do a fresh start?
If I for some reasons should look into adding DT support for a board, I
would have no trouble browsing some older barebox tree.
But I cannot see anyone would care about the older at91sam9* boards.
Keep the sama* boards but drop the at91sam* boards that are not
multi image enabled today.
If someone shows up and needs one of the at91sam* boards it should be
doable to add DT support as the infrastructure is in place.
But I cannot find the motivation to do so today, as I do not see any
For the sama* boards Ahmed does a fantastic job migrating them one by
one so we should keep all of them. This is also a much newer SoC than
the at91sam* so there are products using this SoC where it can make
sense to do some new development.
More information about the barebox