[PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: Broadcom: Unconditionally build arch/arm/mach-bcm

Hello,

2013/7/26 Domenico Andreoli [off-list ref]:

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:29:18AM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 04:56:40PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:

quoted

From: Domenico Andreoli <redacted>

arch/arm/mach-bcm contains a plurality of Broadcom SoCs, each configured
separately. As a matter of flexibility and maintenance, it needs to be
always included in the build.

So if I'm building mach-kirkwood, I _have_ to build Broadcom?  What is
the *specific* problem you're encountering that this solves?

In mach-bcm we (or I, it's not very clear to me) want to have support for
multiple SoCs.

In trying the approach

machine-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM)              += bcm
machine-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM4760)          += bcm

I got linker complains about multiple symbol definitiion in case both the
config options are selected.

The first thought was to use a common option which purpose was only to
include the subdir but then, given my allergy to the tons of config options
with usually not straghtforward purpose, I opted for something more simple.

I do not understand why are you trying so hard to put your SoC support
in mach-bcm. I was one of the only people to complain that mach-bcm
was both confusing and not generic enough to cover all Broadcom SoCs.
I still think it should have been specified to mach-bcmmobile or
something like mach-bcm28xxx. Back in the days where ARM drivers were
mostly living in arch/arm/*, it *might* have made some sense but now,
I really think that you should go with your own mach-bcm470x
directory.

BCM47060, BCM53xx and BCM28xx all have both different CPU backends and
different on-chip peripherals, which are even connected differently,
put clearly, they share very little but the ARM architecture.
-- 
Florian