On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 09:16:02PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Maxime Ripard
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:48:55PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:

quoted

The Allwinner A80 is a new Cortex octo-core A7/A15 big.LITTLE SoC.
While it's processor cores and interconnecting bus are new, it
re-uses many peripherals found in earlier Allwinner SoCs.

Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <redacted>
---
 arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig | 5 +++++
 arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sunxi.c | 9 +++++++++
 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig
index 1aaa1e1..72f222b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig

@@ -42,4 +42,9 @@ config MACH_SUN8I
      select MFD_SUN6I_PRCM
      select RESET_CONTROLLER

+config MACH_SUN9I
+     bool "Allwinner A80 (sun9i) SoCs support"

With the new naming scheme, I wonder wether it makes sense to have the
A80 displayed here and in the machine definition.

I expect anything that falls under sun9i to be compatible, or a trimmed
down version. But that's just me.

Well, compatible is a rather vague notion. They will be different for
sure. Maybe not that different, but still.

We know that Allwinner has released the A33, which should be compatible
with the A23, sun8i.

Except that it would not be straight forward for an A33 user for
example that he needs to enable the A23 support.

And the A83 has been announced, which looks like a trimmed down
version of the A80. The next SoC should be arm64, and would not
matter here.

Kevin, Shuge, could you provide us with the codenames for the A33 and
A83, and what earlier SoC they are based on?

Even though it would be nice to know, it's not really the issue here.

Maxime

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com