[PATCH 6/8] arm: mach-armada: add support for Armada XP board with device tree
Ben Dooks
ben.dooks at codethink.co.uk
Tue May 15 10:32:36 EDT 2012
On 15/05/12 15:16, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Le Tue, 15 May 2012 14:53:45 +0100,
> Ben Dooks<ben.dooks at codethink.co.uk> a écrit :
>
>> Since the two board support files are identical, except for the names
>> they print, I'd say this is the job of one file. It can always be
>> split later.
>
> The initial motivation for keeping two files here is that the two SoC
> have a different number of PCIe memory areas, and those areas are
> typically mapped in ->map_io(). However:
Yes, the number of times I've viewed the kernel and seen very similar
code replicated multiple times tends to make me burst into tears.
> * Maybe those mappings can be done using a normal ioremap() rather
> than in ->map_io(), according to DT informations (but most other ARM
> SoC support at the moment seem to do PCI mappings using static
> mappings in ->map_io)
That's a very old way of doing it. I'm pretty sure there's no reason to
get these allocated so early.
I believe you can probably leave the PCI/PCIe bindings until you have
enough kernel state to do ioremap() or similar and then associate the
necessary mappings with the bus creation.
> * We probably shouldn't have anticipated this too much, and keep only
> one file for this initial submission.
Yes, the less we need to review the better.
> We'll rework this for our v2.
Great.
> Thanks for the comments!
I'll get to testing this kernel soon, and report back
> Thomas
--
Ben Dooks http://www.codethink.co.uk/
Senior Engineer Codethink - Providing Genius
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list