Subject: [PATCH 6/8] arm: mach-armada: add support for Armada XP board with device tree

From: [email-masked] (Ben Dooks)
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:32:36 +0100

On 15/05/12 15:16, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> Le Tue, 15 May 2012 14:53:45 +0100,
> Ben Dooks<[email-masked]>  a ?crit :
>
>> 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