From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2342 invoked by alias); 18 May 2011 19:00:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 2037 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2011 19:00:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FREEMAIL_FROM,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from lo.gmane.org (HELO lo.gmane.org) (80.91.229.12) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 May 2011 19:00:08 +0000 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QMlyX-0007lr-Vy for ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 18 May 2011 21:00:06 +0200 Received: from dsl.comtrol.com ([64.122.56.22]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 21:00:05 +0200 Received: from grant.b.edwards by dsl.comtrol.com with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 21:00:05 +0200 To: ecos-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Grant Edwards Subject: Re: [Bug 1000819] Add support for Atmel AT91SAM9263 Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 19:00:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <20110518171954.DA7DB2F7800B@mail.ecoscentric.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: slrn/pre0.9.9-102 (Linux) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00019.txt.bz2 On 2011-05-18, bugzilla-daemon@bugs.ecos.sourceware.org wrote: > Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at: > http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1000819 > > --- Comment #28 from Daniel Helgason 2011-05-18 18:19:50 BST --- > (In reply to comment #11) >> Let's try to push through with review and get it checked in. I've invited all >> interested parties to add themselves to the CC list and add their own comment >> where necessary/appropriate. >> >> Evgeniy, the use of multiple patches is a great help - thank you! >> >> Let's start with the ARM7/ARM9 abstraction work (patch 1). This looks to be a >> case of moving the existing HAL cache macros (which are not appropriate for >> AT91SAM9) from the AT91 variant package to a new ARM7 package. I assume that >> there is nothing AT91-specific in the new package so it could be used by any >> other ARM7 ports in the future. Please confirm. >> ... > > Is is correct to have AT91 as a variant? I see it more as a package that > defines a set of common I/O and provides macros for common AT91 stuff. That makes a lot of sense to me. In reality, "AT91" is a common set of peripherals that are used on a variety of Atmel parts having several different architectures, varieties, and platforms. > Would it > make sense if things were arranged more like: > > ARM (arch) > +- ARM7 (variant) > + SAM7S (platform) > + SAM7X (platform) > + Other Non-AT91 chip (platform) > + SAM7S-EK (board) > + SAM7X-EK (board) > ...etc. > + ARM9 (variant) > + SAM9263 (platform) > + SAM9G20 (platform) > + SAM9RL64 (platform) > + Other Non-AT91 chip (platform) > + SAM9G20-EK (board) > + SAM99RL-EK (board > ...etc. > + AT91 (I/O support package) > > Or maybe I'm just confused about the relationship between arch, var, > and plf? You wouldn't be the first. :) -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Look into my eyes and at try to forget that you have gmail.com a Macy's charge card!