-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Florian Fainelli wrote:
Also, it is
Well, it's not like somebody who wants to add support for e.g. JZ4730
would start from scratch and add a complete implementation which then
has to be merged with JZ4740. You would start adding it on-top of the
existing JZ4740 platform support and generalize it where necessary.
Renaming is cheap! This is not part of an API thats set into stone...
Seriously, it doesn't make any sense to waste time and try to
generalize now while it is uncertain if there will be support of a
different JZ47xx SoC anytime soon. Furthermore the likelihood of over-
or under-generalizing is pretty high if you do not know exactly what
you want or what you need.
I strongly disagree that it is easier to do the factoring job now. It
will be easier when you actually know what requirements you'll have
based on hard facts instead of having some loose ideas of what might
work and what not.
That said, the platform support has been designed with having the idea
of support for multiple JZ47XX SoCs at some point. So it will mostly
be picking up the components shared between different SoCs and put
them in a shared folder (and maybe do a 's/jz4740/jz47xx/g'). But
right now there is only JZ4740 support...
- - Lars
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----