linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v2 00/26] Add support for the Ingenic JZ4740 System-on-a-Chip

To: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/26] Add support for the Ingenic JZ4740 System-on-a-Chip
From: Florian Fainelli <florian@openwrt.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:57:54 +0200
Cc: "Lars-Peter Clausen" <lars@metafoo.de>, Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Graham Gower <graham.gower@gmail.com>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:from:reply-to:to :subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=DfrDkotriH1F2dRynk9/IX/bCeGOiSK4TUmUk1o+NTY=; b=Veouf4Bfq3XisBSsLpX0U8chyxLnreR5mRLcMgW654cjWzOscBkQ/TZoqBcfBRFvP+ iD0yPL7ygOscx9Dmnn7WFJTfOryN2uPT7OPzZMxn2yR/1leyUHgMnLNsAsatZZdpppVp ojzKd6+1agHrlvCkIpsZ3v+EGQoSd9K+uisec=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references :in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :message-id; b=KzTlGTS5qRYUEAS407kjtmxeDjKvHGoEbhB13LFkucU47zHRsKSfHnG6PnOikH2V6d 4Zg22g6cOs/O+h4c0FcrC0CgeAEPM7LnOEvbYYzq8/b8CGa5fcLhYV8HerIDVxvD8dLu 4H21/eWg+SmaMij/qJix3kAtxrSgBt0V4nZA8=
In-reply-to: <20100620170111.GA8650@alpha.franken.de>
References: <1276924111-11158-1-git-send-email-lars@metafoo.de> <4C1E467D.5030204@metafoo.de> <20100620170111.GA8650@alpha.franken.de>
Reply-to: Florian Fainelli <florian@openwrt.org>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.34-1-amd64; KDE/4.4.4; x86_64; ; )
Hi,

Le Sunday 20 June 2010 19:01:11, Thomas Bogendoerfer a écrit :
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 06:49:01PM +0200, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> > different to JZ4750 and JZ4760. So JZ47xx wont fit either.
> > Right now there is no practical use to moving things around, and there
> > wont be until somebody who can actually test it starts adding support
> > for a different JZ47XX SoC.
> 
> great, I like such attitude:-(

I have to agree with Thomas here, if your concern is about the naming, then 
just have a look at the vendor sources and find similarities for what is worth 
being named JZ47XX and what deserves a name which is more specific. Also, it is 
much easier to do that factoring job now instead of when there will be 3 or 
more flavors of that SoC to be supported.

Take a look at BCM63xx for instance, it is named like that because it supports 
4 different versions of the family SoC, even though the internals of the SoC 
have been varying a lot, still we support it with a single kernel and what is 
really family specific is named accordingly from what is chip-specific.
--
Florian

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>