qemu-ppc
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC PATCH 12/12] ppc: Add aCube Sam460ex board


From: BALATON Zoltan
Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [RFC PATCH 12/12] ppc: Add aCube Sam460ex board
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 14:46:42 +0200 (CEST)
User-agent: Alpine 2.21 (BSF 202 2017-01-01)

On Fri, 18 Aug 2017, David Gibson wrote:
On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 07:04:38PM +0200, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
Add emulation of aCube Sam460ex board based on AMCC 460EX embedded SoC.
This is not a full implementation yet with a lot of components still
missing but enough to start a Linux kernel and the U-Boot firmware.

Signed-off-by: Fran├žois Revol <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan <address@hidden>

There are a *lot* of devices defined here.  Most of them look like
they belong to the SoC, not the board (since they use DCRs), so it
doesn't really make sense to define them in a board file.  It would
also make it easier to review if they were split up into separate
patches.

I thought it's simpler to review a series with 12 reasonably sized patches than one with twice as many which only modify a few lines here and there each. Also adding a lot of code scattered in hw directories is probably less clear than having them all at one place. But of course each approach can be reasoned. I thought this might have to be split up but I've left it one place for now for first review to get some advice on what's preferred.

Maybe I should put things that belong to the SoC in ppc440_uc.c (similar to ppc405uc.c we already have) and move common devices used by both to ppc4xx_devs.c (which already seems to serve that purpose). If more cleanup is needed that could be done separately afterwards, I don't think it's a good idea to mix in too much cleanup now to keep patches relatively simple. (I already have some moving around included as clean up patches but I'd like to focus on actual functions than clean up at this point).

Does putting these devices from board code to ppc440_uc.c sound acceptable?

Regards,
BALATON Zoltan

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]