[PATCH v4 00/11] ep93xx: Move SoC private bits to core

[Ryan Mallon]

On 13/03/12 23:35, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Monday 12 March 2012, Ryan Mallon wrote:
>> This patch series is an effort to move the ep93xx SoC specific code out
>> of drivers and include/mach into arch/arm/mach-ep93xx. This work
>> involves the following changes:
>>
>>  - Create a new private header called soc.h to replace most of 
>>    mach/include/ep93xx-regs.h
>>  - Move the Maverick crunch code from arch/arm/kernel to mach-ep93xx
>>  - Convert the ep93xx backlight and watchdog drivers to properly
>>    ioremap memory.
>>  - Move all system controller access to the ep93xx core code
>>
>> The only defines left in ep93xx-regs.h are for the APB UARTS which
>> are also needed in include/mach/uncompress.h and
>> include/mach/debug-macro.S.
>>
>> Patch 2 has already been merged to the ASoC tree and patch 5 has
>> already been merged to the watchdog tree. Neither patch has been
>> modified since they were applied, and are included here for
>> completeness and to avoid build errors. 
> 
> Looks all very nice, great work!
> 
>> All of the patches are against v3.3-rc7 and  now have reviewed-by
>> and/or acked-by tags except for patch 4 which has been changed
>> since the last version. Arnd, once I get an ack for the final patch
>> I can prepare a git branch for you to pull. I understand if this is
>> now too late for v3.4.
> 
> If there are no conflicts against the for-next branch and Olof agrees,
> I would probably let this one go in for v3.4. It's a nice cleanup
> and it will be easier to do your v3.5 patches if it's all merged.


Okay thanks. I'll try and fix up the minor bits and pieces that you and
Hartley pointed out and send a pull request later tonight.

I'm planning on using my tree for future ep93xx development, so that I
can aggregate any patches there to be included in arm-soc.

> 
> On a related note, I would like to understand better what your plans
> are for the future of ep93xx. My undestanding is that the product line
> is a dead end and there won't be any other compatible socs, but the
> Linux support is very much alive and supports all the existing hardware,
> is that correct?

Yeah, the product line is dead, but there are a handful of boards still
being used in production systems and we now support most of the
peripherals, I think IDE is the only major device missing support.

> There are currently eight board files (since all the dev boards got
> merged into one file), which seems very manageable and there should be
> no problem adding a few more over the years to come, if necessary.

I doubt there will be many new boards added.

> At the same time, the platform seems simple enough that you could
> also do a device tree port in rather in a fairly short time if you
> like, which would let you obsolete all the board files and add new
> machines just through device tree blobs.


Yeah, converting to device tree is one of my goals. I need to spend some
time reading through the device tree specification first.

~Ryan