On Wed, 20 Mar 2024 11:33:16 -0400 Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 08:52:30PM +0530, Devarsh Thakkar wrote:
Hi Tom, Lukas,
Thanks for the patch Lukas.
On 20/03/24 20:00, Tom Rini wrote:
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 02:19:26PM +0100, lukas.funke-oss@weidmueller.com wrote:
From: Lukas Funke lukas.funke@weidmueller.com
Some architectures use spl_board_init() in their architecture specific implementation. Board developers should be able to add board specific implementation via spl_board_init(). Hence, introduce a spl_arch_init() method which is called right before spl_board_init() for architecture specific implementation.
Signed-off-by: Lukas Funke lukas.funke@weidmueller.com
I think this could allow for other SoCs to clean up their existing
Does it make more sense to make this SoC specific then instead of arch specific to allow broader range of code?
"soc" and "arch" are somewhat interchangeable at times, so I think we
Isn't "arch" ambiguous anyway? I connect that with CPU architecture, as in x86, ARM, RISC-V. And we have that in the top level directories: arch/arm, etc. But here it's one level below, isn't it? Where "platform" (or "plat") would be a more suiting term to describe a SoC family, like xilinx or sunxi? So the hierarchy would be really: arch -> plat -> soc -> board?
Or am I confused here?
Cheers, Andre
can go one step at a time here and bring in this abstraction and see where everyone else is able to clean their code up to.