[PATCH 0/4] ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 12:23 AM, Lukasz Majewski <lukma at denx.de> wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
>> Hello Lukasz!
>>
>> On 17/11/17 00:22, Lukasz Majewski wrote:
>> > This patch series adds support for Liebherr's BK3 board, being
>> > a derivative of TS72XX design.
>> >
>> > This patchset consists of following patches:
>> >
>> > - ts72xx.[c|h] cosmetic cleanup/improvement
>> > - Move the common code for ts72xx and BK3 to ts72xx-common.c - this
>> >   code can be reused by other designs build around ts72xx
>> > - The Liebherr's BK3 board has been added with re-using code of
>> >   ts72xx.c
>> >
>> > Lukasz Majewski (4):
>> >   ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Use DEFINE_RES_MEM macros where applicable
>>
>> The patch 3/4 deletes everything added by patch 1/4, so I don't
>> really see the point of it.
>
> I wanted to first clean up things.

Cleaning it up first is the right approach, a patch that moves code around
should not contain any other changes.

>> >   ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Provide include guards for ts72xx.h file
>> >   ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Exclude reusable part of the ts72xx board
>> >   ARM: ep93xx: ts72xx: Add support for BK3 board - ts72xx
>> > derivative
>>
>> I tend to agree with Hartley, if you'd just add all BK3-related
>> extras to ts72xx.c it would be less than 60 LoCs, you probably even
>> do not need new Kconfig options.
>
> Some Kconfig option would be welcome (MACH_BK3 ?) if it turns out that I
> do need to adjust some things later (like change HAMMING NAND ECC to BCH
> for plat_nand driver).
>
> The separate bk3.c file is more appealing (for me) in terms of extending
> the code latter.

I think keeping everything in one file, but adding a new Kconfig option that
uses 'select MACH_TS72XX' to enable the existing board would be simpler,
we can split it out later once we think it gets too big.

      Arnd