[RFC PATCH] stargate2 and imote2 board file merge

[Stefan Schmidt]

Hello.

On Mon, 2010-06-07 at 10:08, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On 06/07/10 08:07, Stefan Schmidt wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 2010-06-06 at 14:55, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <jic23 at cam.ac.uk>
> >> ---
> >>  These two boards are extremely similar in many ways and hence
> >>  the board configs overlap a lot.  This patch merges the two
> >>  board files.  Do people think this is worth doing?  Traditionally
> >>  we always built a kernel supporting both devices anyway but the
> >>  ifdefs allow one to be picked if people really want to.
> > 
> > I find it an interesting idea. We have done this on EZX with 6 devices. One
> > thing that jumps into my face is that we should provide a way to let people know
> > that the stargate2.c file does indeed also provide support for imote2. At least
> > updated comments in KConfig and the header of the c file would be needed. That
> > would allow people to discover it during configuration or greping.
> Not sure we care particularly in the kconfig as it doesn't make any difference
> to someone configuring. Either way they just select the platforms they want.
> As for the c, greping will still work, it'll just get the machine definition
> rather than the comments at the top.  Still I agree a few comments wouldn't hurt!

Yeah, I somehow missed that imote2 is still available as before in Kconfig just
maps to another board file. My bad. That fine then.

> > I don't know much about the Crossbow product palette but maybe we should even
> > rename it to crossbow.c
> Sadly not.  The devices were both originally Intel Research.  They sold the imote2
> to crossbow. I think they gave the stargate2 designs to UCLA but I haven't seen any
> sign of them doing anything with them and no one has posted anything to the platformx
> users list for a while.  To complicate things further the imote2 is now owned by Memsic
> after they bought the relevant bit of Crossbow. No idea what their plans are.
> 
> I'm inclined just to pick one or the other.  Perhaps we go with imote2
> as I suspect there are a lot more them out there! Can't even use platformx
> (Intel's code word for these sorts of devices) as that covered the original stargate.

Thanks for the background info. I'm fine with either one.

> >>  arch/arm/mach-pxa/Makefile    |    2 +-
> >>  arch/arm/mach-pxa/imote2.c    |  590 -----------------------------------
> >>  arch/arm/mach-pxa/stargate2.c |  679 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >>  3 files changed, 454 insertions(+), 817 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Given that we can eliminate nearly 400 lines of code and one board file I think
> > it is worth it. I looked over the patch and it does look good so far. Will give
> > it a runtime test the next days. If that truns out well I'm fine to ack it.

> :) I'll admit I haven't tested it myself yet.  Didn't have the debug board to hand
> to be able to flash it to an imote2 and my sg2's were all in use testing the radio
> driver (that is dependent on mac802154 mainlining).  One day we will have these devices
> fully supported in mainline.

I should be able to flash it onto the imote2 today or tomorrow. Will let you
know my results.

mfg
Stefan Schmidt