[U-Boot] [PATCH-ARM] Add support for Embest SBC2440-II Board 1/7

[Remy Bohmer <linux@bohmer.net>]

Hello Kevin,

2009/6/25 kevin.morfitt at fearnside-systems.co.uk
<kevin.morfitt@fearnside-systems.co.uk>:
>
> Patches 1 to 4 replace "[PATCH-ARM 1/2] Add support for
> the Embest SBC2440-II Board 1/2" submitted on 19/06/2009.
>
> This patch re-formats the code in cpu/arm920t and cpu/arm920t/23c24x0 in
> preparation for changes to add support for the Embest SBC2440-II Board.
>
> The changes are as follows:
>
> - re-indent the code using Lindent
> - make sure register layouts are defined using a C struct, from a
> ?comment by Wolfgang on 03/06/2009
> - replace the upper-case typedef'ed C struct names with lower case
> ?non-typedef'ed ones, from a comment by Scott on 22/06/2009
> - make sure registers are accessed using the proper accessor
> ?functions, from a comment by Wolfgang on 03/06/2009
> - run checkpatch.pl and fix any error reports
>
> Note that usb_ohci.c still has two lines that exceed 80 characters.
> This is because the statements on those lines lose readability when
> wrapped - the Linux coding style guidleines allows for this.
>
> This complete series of patches assumes the following patches have
> already been applied:
>
> - [PATCH-ARM] Bug-fix in drivers mtd nand Makefile, sent 18/06/2009
> - [PATCH-ARM] CONFIG_SYS_HZ fix for ARM920T S3C24X0 Boards, sent
> ?21/06/2009
>
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Morfitt <kevin.morfitt@fearnside-systems.co.uk>
> ---
> ?cpu/arm920t/s3c24x0/usb_ohci.c | 1268 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------

Why are these files put in the cpu section, and not in the drivers/usb
section where it belongs.
Could it be merged into the existing ohci code, especially if it
contains improvements compared to the existing code?
I do not think it is okay to copy similar code to different places in u-boot.

Kind regards,

Remy