Re: [PATCH 0/9] ARM: misc cleanups

[Sam Ravnborg <sam@ravnborg.org>]

Hi Sascha.

On Wed, Mar 01, 2023 at 08:53:24AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 06:37:08PM +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> > Hi Sascha,
> > 
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:30:22PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > I am working on making it possible to build support for multiple
> > > arch/arm/mach-*/ into the same barebox. Here are some misc cleanups
> > > I stumbled upon while preparing multi arch support.
> > > 
> > > Sascha Hauer (9):
> > >   ARM: mxs: remove unused mach/clock.h
> > >   ARM: imx: remove unused mach/clock.h
> > >   ARM: rockchip: drop mach/timer.h
> > >   ARM: i.MX: Move imxfb.h to include/platform_data/
> > >   pinctrl: rockchip: Fix uninitialized var warning
> > >   ARM: at91: remove unnecessary configs
> > >   ARM: at91: Switch all boards to multiimage
> > >   at91: consolidate usb-a963 128m images
> > >   ARM: pxa: Move plat/ include files to mach/
> > 
> > As much as I like the patches I think a more sane course of
> > action for these old at91 boards would be to drop most of them.
> 
> Agreed, and you just motivated me to look into it.
> 
> > A simple algorithm would be:
> >   If not supported in the kernel, drop the board.
> 
> That algorithm doesn't bring us very far. Here is a list of boards
> supported in barebox, the 'x' add the beginning denotes that I
> found a device tree for it in the kernel:
> 
> AT91RM9200
> ==========
> x MACH_AT91RM9200EK	Atmel AT91RM9200-EK Evaluation Kit
> 
> AT91SAM9260
> ===========
> x MACH_ANIMEO_IP	Somfy Animeo IP
> x MACH_AT91SAM9260EK	Atmel AT91SAM9260-EK
> x MACH_QIL_A9260	CALAO QIL-A9260 board
> x MACH_TNY_A9260	CALAO TNY-A9260
> x MACH_USB_A9260	CALAO USB-A9260
>   MACH_GE863		Telit EVK-PRO3
> 
> AT91SAM9261
> ===========
> x MACH_AT91SAM9261EK	Atmel AT91SAM9261-EK Evaluation Kit
>   MACH_PM9261		Ronetix PM9261
> 
> AT91SAM9G10
> ===========
> x MACH_AT91SAM9G10EK	Atmel AT91SAM9G10-EK Evaluation Kit
> 
> AT91SAM9G20
> ===========
> x MACH_AT91SAM9G20EK	Atmel AT91SAM9G20-EK Evaluation Kit
> x MACH_TNY_A9G20	CALAO TNY-A9G20
> x MACH_USB_A9G20	CALAO USB-A9G20
>   MACH_DSS11		aizo dSS11
>   MACH_QIL_A9G20	CALAO QIL-A9G20 board
>   MACH_HABA_KNX_LITE	CALAO HABA-KNX-LITE
> 
> AT91SAM9263
> ===========
>   MACH_PM9263		Ronetix PM9263
> x MACH_TNY_A9263	CALAO TNY-A9263
> x MACH_USB_A9263	CALAO USB-A9263
> 
> AT91SAM9G45 or AT91SAM9M10
> ==========================
>   MACH_AT91SAM9M10IHD	Atmel AT91SAM9M10IDH Tablet
> x MACH_AT91SAM9M10G45EK	Atmel AT91SAM9M10G45-EK Evaluation Kit
> x MACH_PM9G45		Ronetix PM9G45
> 
> AT91SAM9N12
> ===========
> x MACH_AT91SAM9N12EK	Atmel AT91SAM9N12 Evaluation Kit
> 
> SAMA5D3
> =======
> x MACH_SAMA5D3XEK	Atmel SAMA5D3X Evaluation Kit
> 
> SAMA5D4
> =======
> x MACH_SAMA5D4EK	Atmel SAMA5D4 Evaluation Kit
> x MACH_SAMA5D4_XPLAINED	Atmel SAMA5D4 XPLAINED ULTRA Evaluation Kit
> 
> It seems most boards are supported in the kernel as well.
Looking closer what I remembered was the removal of the legacy board
support - as the boards all became DT enabled.

> 
> >   
> > The boards that are not in the kernel have not seen any
> > activity in barebox for a long time, so it is not like
> > they look maintained.
> 
> None of the boards has seen any activity except for those that are
> already converted to multiboard.
> 
> Given that we could remove all board and SoC support that has
> not yet been converted to multiboard support.
> 
> The question is: When you want to port over some more board/SoC code
> to multiboard, does the existing code help you or would it be easier
> to do a fresh start?
If I for some reasons should look into adding DT support for a board, I
would have no trouble browsing some older barebox tree.
But I cannot see anyone would care about the older at91sam9* boards.
Keep the sama* boards but drop the at91sam* boards that are not
multi image enabled today.

If someone shows up and needs one of the at91sam* boards it should be
doable to add DT support as the infrastructure is in place.
But I cannot find the motivation to do so today, as I do not see any
potential users.

For the sama* boards Ahmed does a fantastic job migrating them one by
one so we should keep all of them. This is also a much newer SoC than
the at91sam* so there are products using this SoC where it can make
sense to do some new development.

Makes sense?

	Sam