[Bug 1000819] Add support for Atmel AT91SAM9263

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs dot ecos dot sourceware dot org]

Please do not reply to this email. Use the web interface provided at:
http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1000819

--- Comment #23 from Jonathan Larmour <jifl@ecoscentric.com> 2011-03-22 15:08:26 GMT ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> 
> a) Is the separation of PIO layout definitions into separate header files
> implemented at the correct level in this case (processor level)?

Yes.

> b) Does it make sense to separate the PIO layout definitions from other I/O
> definitions (if any) in this way?

I think it would be good to also separate other I/O definitions. I don't know
if that's too much to ask at the moment, so starting with PIO may well be fine.
You don't _want_ e.g. all SAM7x definitions put in one single file - you want
something more modular in any case because there will be commonality with other
processors.

> c) For the existing ports, would it be preferable to place the PIO layout
> definitions in the processor HAL rather than in the AT91 variant HAL? This
> would avoid the need to give each PIO layout header file a unique name. We need
> to weigh up the risk of breaking platform ports we cannot readily test.

I think in the current patch, the new pio_sam7*.h may as well live in the
at91sam7s hal, to keep all the sam7 stuff together. Of course non-SAM7's don't
have a separate processor HAL, and I don't think it's worth changing that at
this point. As you say in (d), future processor HALs, e.g. most obviously the
SAM9 should have its pio_sam9*.h files in it. IMO.

I don't think having unique names is a big deal in itself. FAOD I think it is
important to keep it as a define, rather than /requiring/ there to be a file
with a particular name.

> d) For new ports (including AT91SAM9 family), would it be preferable to place
> the PIO layout definitions in the processor HAL rather than in the AT91 variant
> HAL? I definitely think so.

Yes. 

> Comments?
> 
> Any other issues relating specifically to patch 3?

Yes, the biggest problem is that there are (again) no copyright headers for new
files, so formally I need to reject the patch as it stands. But the above
comments will require changes anyway.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.