[PATCH v2 4/9] arm64: Add platform selection for BCM2835.
From: Eric Anholt <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 21:57:59
Also in:
lkml
Catalin Marinas [off-list ref] writes:
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:48:54PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:quoted
Catalin Marinas [off-list ref] writes:quoted
On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 05:21:35PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:quoted
Catalin Marinas [off-list ref] writes:quoted
On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 12:55:15PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:quoted
Catalin Marinas [off-list ref] writes:quoted
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 08:18:23AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:quoted
+ This SoC is used in the Raspberry Pi 3 device.I thought we would just use ARCH_BCM, or is it too generic?Consensus last time around seemed to be to drop adding ARCH_BCM, in favor of patch 1 of the series.I may have missed that discussion. My point was about consistency with existing ARCH_* definitions in the arm64 Kconfig.platforms. I can see why it's easier for you since some drivers are built based on ARCH_BCM2835. Looking at drivers/clk/bcm/Makefile, there is an inconsistent mix of CLK_BCM_* and ARCH_BCM_*. I would rather have a new CLK_BCM2835 that's selected/enabled accordingly (maybe simply depending on ARCH_BCM).So I introduce a new ARCH_BCM here, that selects the just the 283x family's core drivers? That seems strange, but I'm willing if that's what you want.I'll leave this decision to the arm-soc guys. What I want to avoid is another ARCH_BCM283[89] when some clock or other device changes in a future revision of this board (RPi4?). I also don't want fine-grained SoC configuration *within* the arch/arm64 Kconfigs but rather just a family ARCH_* entry with selectable individual drivers based on the SoC revision you target (in case you want to avoid single Image). We should in general try to give drivers their own Kconfig entries separate from ARCH_* ones (with a "depend on ARCH_*" and default y if you want it enabled).OK, we haven't added separate ARCH_BCM283* for the 3 chip revs so far, so I think what you want is actually the status quo, and we're in serious agreement. The name for the family just happens to be ARCH_BCM2835. Any chance we could get an ack on this?If you need one ;) (arm-soc is maintaining this file): Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
It's in my for-next now. Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20160615/39b73856/attachment.sig>