[RFC 1/2] AT91: Support SAM9260 and SAM9G20-based boards in the same kernel image

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 08:00 Tue 18 Jan     , Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 08:57 +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote :
> > On 18:50 Sat 15 Jan     , Albin Tonnerre wrote:
> > > Nothing actually prevents support for boards based on these SoCs to be
> > > compiled in the same kernel image, since the SAM9260 and SAM9G20 are
> > > almost identical (AT91SAM9G20 adds some new features, but is otherwise
> > > compatible with the AT91SAM9260).
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Albin Tonnerre <albin.tonnerre at free-electrons.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig |   31 +++++++++++++------------------
> > >  1 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig
> > > index c015b68..d1eda58 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig
> > > @@ -26,8 +26,8 @@ config ARCH_AT91RM9200
> > >  	select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
> > >  	select HAVE_AT91_USART3
> > >  
> > > -config ARCH_AT91SAM9260
> > > -	bool "AT91SAM9260 or AT91SAM9XE"
> > > +config ARCH_AT91SAM9260_VARIANTS
> > sos so
> > 
> > I'm working on a similar patch but ARCH_AT91SAM9260_VARIANTS seems so so
> > 
> > I get in mind to get rid of ARCH_AT91SAM92G20
> > 
> > and detect it
> 
> I'm sorry, I can't quite parse your answer. Would you please mind elaborating a
> bit?
this idea is to do not have CONFIG_ARCH_AT91SAM9G20 anymore only 9260

and detect it

but the man issue is the CLOCK_TICK_RATE which is different between both of
them except if we use a common one for those soc or the sam9/11 we could not
put them in the same kernel

so we need to fix this first

Best Regards,
J.