Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] arm64: Add platform selection for BCM2835.

[Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>]

On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 12:55:15PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 08:18:23AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms
> >> index 7ef1d05..ea88402 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms
> >> @@ -13,6 +13,19 @@ config ARCH_ALPINE
> >>  	  This enables support for the Annapurna Labs Alpine
> >>  	  Soc family.
> >>  
> >> +config ARCH_BCM2835
> >> +	bool "Broadcom BCM2835 family"
> >> +	select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
> >> +	select CLKSRC_OF
> >> +	select PINCTRL
> >> +	select PINCTRL_BCM2835
> >> +	select ARM_AMBA
> >> +	select ARM_TIMER_SP804
> >> +	select HAVE_ARM_ARCH_TIMER
> >> +	help
> >> +	  This enables support for the Broadcom BCM2837 SoC.

Even the BCM number is inconsistent here.

> >> +	  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).

-- 
Catalin