On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 07:48:00AM +0200, Jean-Francois Moine wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2016 22:07:05 +0200
Maxime Ripard [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

Let me know what you think,

I don't see the interest to have common code for 32bits and 64bits.
The clock driver of a SoC will never evolve, so, it is simpler to
copy the source common with the H3 into a clean A64 clock driver.

I'm not sure why 32 bits vs 64 bits matters here. We're going to share
a significant number of drivers already between armv7 and armv8, like
MMC, EMAC, I2C, and so on.

And I expect to share the data in other SoCs for the A10, A13 and A20
for example, or A23/A33, which have a lot of clocks in common too.

The interest of your sunxi-ng approach is that the clocks of each SoC
is described in one file. Here you are mixing 2 SoCs in the same source
file. The advantage is lost.

Because (and only because) the huge majority of those clocks are
shared between these SoCs.

If it differs in a significant way (like for the A31 that is currently
submitted), there's of course no reason to merge it in the same file.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20160731/2bf59356/attachment.sig>