Re: AT91SAM7X Port

[John Eigelaar <jeigelaar@mweb.co.za>]

On Fri, 12 May 2006 13:04:41 +0200, Andrew Lunn wrote:

> 
> Not yet. There is a strong chance that i will need such a port next
> month. If this happens i will be tasked by my employer to make the
> port. So if you are doing a port i suggest we work together. Which of
> the X peripherals are you interested in? I need an Ethernet driver
> which i can connect to lwip.

SPI, UART, EMAC with lwip, probably the same as you do ...

> 
> My current feeling is add support for the X to the existing S.
> Handling the ethernet driver should not be a problem. Make a cdl
> interface in the AT91 ETH package which any HAL with the required
> hardware supports should implement. Same goes for the CAM, and other
> bits of hardware the X has but not the S.

I agree, the X and the S is close enough to each other that you would be
missing out in terms of bug fixes and patches if you split them.

> 
> What may be more of a problem is the two GPIO controllers. The
> existing code, var HAL, SPI, USART etc, assumes that the pins they use
> are on GPIO port A. If this is not true with the X it might get
> messy. We need to compare the S and X and see what is connected where
> with respect to the GPIO controllers.

This is actually a problem with the existing S port as well, as the
alternative peripheral pinouts is not really addressed. This might be a
good oppurtunity to devise a proper solution for this if we are forced to.
 
> The other change that will be needed is in the flash driver. It
> queries the device ID to see if it is a supported device and how big
> the flash is. This will need extending with the ID of the X.

Should be straight forward ... (Famous last words)

> Otherwise, i think a basic port should be quite easy.
Agreed
 
John Eigelaar