[PATCH] ARM: imx: move selection between i.MX21 and i.MX27 to CPU family choice

On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 05:25:13PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:

Hello Sascha,

On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 01:11:53PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:

quoted

 config SOC_IMX27
 	bool
+	select ARCH_MX2
+	select MACH_MX27

I'd let MACH_MX27 select ARCH_MX2, but that's just a minor detail.

quoted

 	select CPU_ARM926T
 	select ARCH_MXC_AUDMUX_V1
 	select IMX_HAVE_DMA_V1
 	select IMX_HAVE_IOMUX_V1
 	select MXC_AVIC
 
-if ARCH_MX1
+config IMX_MULTI_ARCHITECTURE
+	bool "i.MX multi architecture support"
+	depends on ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT
+	depends on AUTO_ZRELADDR

depends on EXPERIMENTAL?

ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT depends on EXPERIMENTAL already. I think once
ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT is considered stable, we can consider i.MX
multiarchitecture support stable aswell.

quoted

+
+if IMX_MULTI_ARCHITECTURE
+config ARCH_IMX_MULTI_MX1
+	select SOC_IMX1
+	bool "i.MX1 support"
+
+config ARCH_IMX_MULTI_MX21
+	select SOC_IMX21
+	bool "i.MX21 support"
+
+config ARCH_IMX_MULTI_MX25
+	select SOC_IMX25
+	bool "i.MX25 support"
+
+config ARCH_IMX_MULTI_MX27
+	select SOC_IMX27
+	bool "i.MX27 support"

I'm not sure it's a good idea to use SOC_IMX21 et al for both, Kconfig
logic to select machines and to signal there are machines selected with
the correspondig soc.

On reason is that selecting ARCH_IMX_MULTI_MX21 and ARCH_IMX_MULTI_MX27
but no i.MX21 based machine currently makes cpu_is_mx27() more (runtime)
complicated than necessary.

Then there's no reason to select IMX_MULTI_ARCHITECTURE in the first
place. What are the other reasons?

Sascha


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |