From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25429 invoked by alias); 24 May 2011 18:28:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 25393 invoked by uid 22791); 24 May 2011 18:28:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from hagrid.ecoscentric.com (HELO mail.ecoscentric.com) (212.13.207.197) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 May 2011 18:28:18 +0000 Received: from localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ecoscentric.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C23B2F78015 for ; Tue, 24 May 2011 19:28:17 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.ecoscentric.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qyYRcPMnLqMv; Tue, 24 May 2011 19:28:16 +0100 (BST) From: bugzilla-daemon@bugs.ecos.sourceware.org To: ecos-patches@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: [Bug 1000819] Add support for Atmel AT91SAM9263 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: eCos X-Bugzilla-Component: Patches and contributions X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dhelgason@shaw.ca X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: normal X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: john@dallaway.org.uk X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 18:28:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20110524182816.6E5D02F78006@mail.ecoscentric.com> Mailing-List: contact ecos-patches-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-patches-owner@ecos.sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-05/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1000819 --- Comment #33 from Daniel Helgason 2011-05-24 19:28:12 BST --- (In reply to comment #29) > Hi, > > ...As such the AT91SAM9 > series should be implemented as 4 separate platforms under this structure, > although they probably be using common peripheral devices which may also be > shared with the rest of the AT91 family... That's the way I see it, too. > ...The > question I see is do we need to introduce a new set of devices for the AT91SAM9 > series, only if there are significant enhancements or interoperability issues > would be my humble opinion.... I don't understand. Do you mean all AT91SAM9 SoC in one AT91SAM9 package? Or additional AT91 peripherals? > ...The problem I see with supporting the SAM3 from the > same IO package is that the peripheral bus structure usually implemented on > cortex devices is not the same as the earlier models. Perhaps the IO package > should be divided by peripheral bus structure AHB,AMBA etc. Okay that's enough > from me. About the only problem I had with using existing AT91 drivers with the SAM3 is that, under Cortex arch, the interrupt number is no longer the same as the AT91 peripheral ID. Also, I had to duplicate all the AT91 peripheral definitions into the SAM3 port. Way too much duplication. That's why I think having the AT91 package just be a I/O support package would be a good thing. Dan H. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.