In message 012b01c74ca1$8ee35fe0$01c4af0a@Glamdring you wrote:
If we go my way, then we should be able to have *tested* sam926x support inside U-boot very soon, and while this results in duplication of a small part of the spi code on the source level (no addition to the binary) I believe that the benefit to the community of at91sam926x users of having native support in U-Boot outweighs this duplication a lot.
And once it's in, who guarantees to clean it up later? And when?
We are not introducing any new interfaces here,
But we're adding to the mess of duplicated code.
No, that is wrong.
today at45.c is in itself a duplication.
board/at91rm9200dk/at45.c and board/cmc_pu2/at45.c are duplicates (except for a bug which is not fixed in cmc_pu2)
Customers which build their own board add additional at45.c's in their board directory.
After the patch you have a single at45.c which is common for all at91rm9200 boards and a single spi.c which is common for all at91rm9200 boards and an spi.c which is common for all at91sam926x boards.
spi.c is CPU specific and the only reason you can have a single file for the sam926x (three chips supported by that the file) contains ifdefs to select which chip.
Duplication is therefore reduced by the patch. I am sure that you realize this if you get into the details.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
Best Regards Ulf Samuelsson ulf@atmel.com Atmel Nordic AB Mail: Box 2033, 174 02 Sundbyberg, Sweden Visit: Kavallerivägen 24, 174 58 Sundbyberg, Sweden Phone +46 (8) 441 54 22 Fax +46 (8) 441 54 29 GSM +46 (706) 22 44 57
Technical support when I am not available: AT89 C51 Applications Group: mailto:micro.hotline@nto.atmel.com AT90 AVR Applications Group: mailto:avr@atmel.com AT91 ARM Applications Group: mailto:at91support@atmel.com FPSLIC Application Group: mailto:fpslic@atmel.com Best AVR link: www.avrfreaks.net