From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com (Thomas Petazzoni) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:40:18 +0200 Subject: [RFC PATCHv1 1/2] ARM: socfpga: initial support for Altera's SOCFPGA platform. In-Reply-To: <20120627180516.GA17393@elf.ucw.cz> References: <1340805007-3313-1-git-send-email-dinguyen@altera.com> <1340805007-3313-2-git-send-email-dinguyen@altera.com> <20120627162014.1494cdd7@skate> <20120627180516.GA17393@elf.ucw.cz> Message-ID: <20120627204018.0bfef362@skate> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Le Wed, 27 Jun 2012 20:05:16 +0200, Pavel Machek a ?crit : > > Is SOCFPGA a good name? It seems like a very generic name. Shouldn't it > > be ARCH_ALTERA_SOCFPGA a better name? I suspect other vendors will > > provide a SoC together with a FPGA. > > I guess for config option name, ALTERA_SOCFPGA is okay, but for > directory name it would be a little bit long. Would that work? Hum, yes, maybe. Maybe just MACH_ALTERA, and mach-altera then? Hopefully others will have better ideas. > > And even more: for a given SoC > > variant, we now generally only want one config options, the board-level > > details being abstracted out by the device tree. > > Will look into that later. Ok. If you look at other platforms, they now typically have only one DT_MACHINE_START, and one configuration option associated to it, for each SoC variant. The different boards are only described using DT. > Ok. > > arch/arm/mach-socfpga/socfpga_cyclone5.c:119: error: > 'IRQ_SOCFPGA_L4_OSC1_TIMER0' undeclared (first use in this function) > > Looks like we'll meed a bit more of dt :-). Yes, you need more DT. You need a DT node for the timer, which will contain all the details like base I/O address and IRQ. > > > +#define NR_IRQS 512 > > > > You should be looking at using SPARSE_IRQ to avoid having a maximum > > number of irqs. See for example mach-highbank/. > > Is maximum number of interrupts a problem? 512 does not seem > excessive. Regardless of the value of NR_IRQS, there is apparently a trend to use SPARSE_IRQ anyway. However, I am not at the best place to explain why SPARSE_IRQ is now considered the right thing to use. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com