Hi Stephen,
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:40:57 -0700 Stephen Warren swarren@wwwdotorg.org wrote:
On 01/24/2015 11:11 PM, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
This commit moves files as follows:
arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra20/* -> arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra20/* arch/arm/cpu/arm720t/tegra30/* -> arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra30/*
...
Bikeshed: I know that this matches what the Linux kernel has for 32-bit ARM, but I've always disliked using the word "machine" to describe an SoC. Would just "tegra" or "soc-tegra" be better than "mach-tegra"? Feel free to entirely ignore this though; I don't feel too strongly.
In hindsight, arch/arm/soc-* would have been clearer than arch/arm/mach-*. However, we are already familiar with this directory name convention, so "machine" looks OK to me.
Oh and one more thing: We're starting to work on 64-bit Tegra support in the Linux kernel. A fair amount of the code moved by this patch is likely to apply on both 32-bit and 64-bit Tegra. Will arch/arm support 64-bit within U-Boot, or will there be a separate directory for 32- and 64-bit ARM? If so, should this code all be moved to something more like soc/tegra/... or drivers/tegra/... or drivers/soc/tegra/... or ... so it can be shared between the architectures?
We had a hot discussion when aarch64 support was introduced to U-Boot.
Finally, the community chose arch/arm/cpu/armv8/ rather than arch/arm64/, i.e. single-arch-directory.
Best Regards Masahiro Yamada