[U-Boot] i.MX8M layout, rephrased

[U-Boot] i.MX8M layout, rephrased

[Sergey Kubushyn]

I'm looking at U-Boot master tree and u-boot-imx repository. What we have
now is quite a mess for i.MX8M.

In master we have the following directories:

 	arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8
 	arch/arm/mach-imx/mx8m

 	arch/arm/include/asm/arch-imx8
 	arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx8m

In u-boot-imx it is different:

 	arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8
 	arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8m (vs ../mx8m in master)

 	arch/arm/include/asm/arch/arch-imx8
 	arch/arm/include/asm/arch/arch-imx8m (vs ../mx8m in master)

The question is which one is going to make it in the master tree?

The problem here is that files from those directories are referenced in
multiple places and the "imx8m"/"mx8m" is all over in the header files and
sources so once we decided on either naming one tree would have to make a
lot of changes either adding or removing that 'i' before "mx8m".

Can anybody responsible tell _WHICH_ one is going to make it into the main
source tree? Would it be better if we decide on it sooner than later (i.e.
_NOW_) so we won't have to hunt it all over the tree later on?

I assume it should be "mx8m" as it is in master tree following suit for
other flavors so it is u-boot-imx tree that has to be fixed.


Another issue is that ARCH_IMX8 and ARCH_IMX8M are treated as different
ARCHITECTURES in u-boot-imx unlike e.g. IMX6 that is treated as one ARCH
with different flavors (SX/DL/Q/whatever). That makes a lot of unnecessary
confusion and, IMHO, should be somehow cleaned up to make it consistent.


Can anybody tell something on this? Any thoughts, ideas, recomendations?

---
******************************************************************
*  KSI at home    KOI8 Net  < >  The impossible we do immediately.  *
*  Las Vegas   NV, USA   < >  Miracles require 24-hour notice.   *
******************************************************************

[U-Boot] i.MX8M layout, rephrased

[Sergey Kubushyn]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2018, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:

Yet another thought -- maybe it's time to move all 64-bit ARM stuff to its
own arch/arm64 as it is in Linux kernel since I don't remember when? There
are quite a few SoCs out there to justify such a move...

> I'm looking at U-Boot master tree and u-boot-imx repository. What we have
> now is quite a mess for i.MX8M.
>
> In master we have the following directories:
>
> 	 arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8
> 	 arch/arm/mach-imx/mx8m
>
> 	 arch/arm/include/asm/arch-imx8
> 	 arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx8m
>
> In u-boot-imx it is different:
>
> 	 arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8
> 	 arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8m (vs ../mx8m in master)
>
> 	 arch/arm/include/asm/arch/arch-imx8
> 	 arch/arm/include/asm/arch/arch-imx8m (vs ../mx8m in master)
>
> The question is which one is going to make it in the master tree?
>
> The problem here is that files from those directories are referenced in
> multiple places and the "imx8m"/"mx8m" is all over in the header files and
> sources so once we decided on either naming one tree would have to make a
> lot of changes either adding or removing that 'i' before "mx8m".
>
> Can anybody responsible tell _WHICH_ one is going to make it into the main
> source tree? Would it be better if we decide on it sooner than later (i.e.
> _NOW_) so we won't have to hunt it all over the tree later on?
>
> I assume it should be "mx8m" as it is in master tree following suit for
> other flavors so it is u-boot-imx tree that has to be fixed.
>
>
> Another issue is that ARCH_IMX8 and ARCH_IMX8M are treated as different
> ARCHITECTURES in u-boot-imx unlike e.g. IMX6 that is treated as one ARCH
> with different flavors (SX/DL/Q/whatever). That makes a lot of unnecessary
> confusion and, IMHO, should be somehow cleaned up to make it consistent.
>
>
> Can anybody tell something on this? Any thoughts, ideas, recomendations?

---
******************************************************************
*  KSI at home    KOI8 Net  < >  The impossible we do immediately.  *
*  Las Vegas   NV, USA   < >  Miracles require 24-hour notice.   *
******************************************************************

[U-Boot] i.MX8M layout, rephrased

[Peng Fan]

Hi Sergey,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: U-Boot [mailto:u-boot-bounces at lists.denx.de] On Behalf Of Sergey
> Kubushyn
> Sent: 2018年12月18日 9:54
> To: U-Boot list <u-boot@lists.denx.de>
> Subject: [U-Boot] i.MX8M layout, rephrased
> 
> I'm looking at U-Boot master tree and u-boot-imx repository. What we have
> now is quite a mess for i.MX8M.
> 
> In master we have the following directories:
> 
>  	arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8
>  	arch/arm/mach-imx/mx8m
> 
>  	arch/arm/include/asm/arch-imx8
>  	arch/arm/include/asm/arch-mx8m
> 
> In u-boot-imx it is different:
> 
>  	arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8
>  	arch/arm/mach-imx/imx8m (vs ../mx8m in master)
> 
>  	arch/arm/include/asm/arch/arch-imx8
>  	arch/arm/include/asm/arch/arch-imx8m (vs ../mx8m in master)
> 
> The question is which one is going to make it in the master tree?

i.MX8/8X/8M are 3 soc families.
i.MX8/8X share similar architecture, so code mostly under imx8 or arch-imx8

i.MX8MQ/MM share similar architecture, so code mostly under imx8m or arch-imx8m.

> 
> The problem here is that files from those directories are referenced in
> multiple places and the "imx8m"/"mx8m" is all over in the header files and
> sources so once we decided on either naming one tree would have to make a
> lot of changes either adding or removing that 'i' before "mx8m".

For newer i.MX SoCs, we will add the "i" to represent i.MX brand.

> 
> Can anybody responsible tell _WHICH_ one is going to make it into the main
> source tree? Would it be better if we decide on it sooner than later (i.e.
> _NOW_) so we won't have to hunt it all over the tree later on?
> 
> I assume it should be "mx8m" as it is in master tree following suit for other
> flavors so it is u-boot-imx tree that has to be fixed.

http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-imx.git;a=commit;h=3d145ff59d183850f11ba4157f03d05fc2fcb992
imx tree has switch to imx8m, and the patch will be merged to master tree, so the master will also switch
to imx8m.

> 
> 
> Another issue is that ARCH_IMX8 and ARCH_IMX8M are treated as different
> ARCHITECTURES in u-boot-imx unlike e.g. IMX6 that is treated as one ARCH
> with different flavors (SX/DL/Q/whatever). That makes a lot of unnecessary
> confusion and, IMHO, should be somehow cleaned up to make it consistent.

IMX8 and IMX8M uses totally different architecture.

Regards,
Peng.

> 
> 
> Can anybody tell something on this? Any thoughts, ideas, recomendations?
> 
> ---
> **************************************************************
> ****
> *  KSI at home    KOI8 Net  < >  The impossible we do immediately.  *
> *  Las Vegas   NV, USA   < >  Miracles require 24-hour notice.   *
> **************************************************************
> ****
> _______________________________________________
> U-Boot mailing list
> U-Boot at lists.denx.de
> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.
> denx.de%2Flistinfo%2Fu-boot&amp;data=02%7C01%7CPeng.Fan%40nxp.co
> m%7Cf91122ecf133487aa45608d6648bc117%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99
> c5c301635%7C0%7C0%7C636806948762235491&amp;sdata=202DqjIQfSABs
> BtuLUN0QvbhadrtMP61mGnmH1QMUpI%3D&amp;reserved=0

[U-Boot] i.MX8M layout, rephrased

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 07:14:02PM -0800, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Dec 2018, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
> 
> Yet another thought -- maybe it's time to move all 64-bit ARM stuff to its
> own arch/arm64 as it is in Linux kernel since I don't remember when? There
> are quite a few SoCs out there to justify such a move...

No, we don't want to split ARMv8 out from arch/arm.  In Linux the split
was done to leave a large amount of legacy decisions behind (similar to
how there was arch/i386 and arch/x86_64 and is now just arch/x86) which
we do not want/need to do.

-- 
Tom
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/attachments/20181226/c6a5a2b7/attachment.sig>

[U-Boot] i.MX8M layout, rephrased

[Sergey Kubushyn]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Tom Rini wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 07:14:02PM -0800, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2018, Sergey Kubushyn wrote:
>>
>> Yet another thought -- maybe it's time to move all 64-bit ARM stuff to its
>> own arch/arm64 as it is in Linux kernel since I don't remember when? There
>> are quite a few SoCs out there to justify such a move...
>
> No, we don't want to split ARMv8 out from arch/arm.  In Linux the split
> was done to leave a large amount of legacy decisions behind (similar to
> how there was arch/i386 and arch/x86_64 and is now just arch/x86) which
> we do not want/need to do.

OK, so is it going to be IMX8M or MX8M?

---
******************************************************************
*  KSI at home    KOI8 Net  < >  The impossible we do immediately.  *
*  Las Vegas   NV, USA   < >  Miracles require 24-hour notice.   *
******************************************************************

[U-Boot] i.MX8M layout, rephrased

[Fabio Estevam]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 7:18 PM Sergey Kubushyn <ksi@koi8.net> wrote:

> OK, so is it going to be IMX8M or MX8M?

Peng has already replied. It is going to be IMX8M:
http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-imx.git;a=commitdiff;h=3d145ff59d183850f11ba4157f03d05fc2fcb992;hp=0c0fbad318dd6d5bee5685489455f5a5eb48ff31

[U-Boot] i.MX8M layout, rephrased

[Sergey Kubushyn]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018, Fabio Estevam wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 7:18 PM Sergey Kubushyn <ksi@koi8.net> wrote:
>
>> OK, so is it going to be IMX8M or MX8M?
>
> Peng has already replied. It is going to be IMX8M:
> http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-imx.git;a=commitdiff;h=3d145ff59d183850f11ba4157f03d05fc2fcb992;hp=0c0fbad318dd6d5bee5685489455f5a5eb48ff31

OK, thanks. That's what I picked so won't have to re-do it again :)

BTW I somehow missed Peng's reply, never received that email.

---
******************************************************************
*  KSI at home    KOI8 Net  < >  The impossible we do immediately.  *
*  Las Vegas   NV, USA   < >  Miracles require 24-hour notice.   *
******************************************************************