Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: dts: r8a7795: salvator-x: Add support for R-Car H3 ES2.0

[Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>]

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 05:18:00PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 01:58:53PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> Split off support for Salvator-X boards with the ES1.x revision of the
> >> R-Car H3 SoC into a separate file.  The main r8a7795-salvator-x.dts file
> >> now corresponds to Salvator-X with R-Car H3 ES2.0 or later.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
> 
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/Makefile
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/Makefile
> >> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
> >>  dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_R8A7795) += r8a7795-salvator-x.dtb r8a7795-h3ulcb.dtb
> >> +dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_R8A7795) += r8a7795-es1-salvator-x.dtb
> >
> > Probably this was already discussed but I wonder if there is any value
> > in a CONFIG_ARCH_R8A7795_ES1 Kconfig symbol to allow more fine grained
> > control over what is compiled into the kernel.
> 
> The plan was always to have a single binary supporting both.
> So I think it makes sense to have a single DT build (as in both DTBs are
> built), too.
> 
> Note that if we add and use CONFIG_ARCH_R8A7795_ES1 here, the ES1 DTB will
> no longer be always created, making it even harder for people who want to
> support multiple kernel versions.
> 
> E.g. to pick the correct DTB for Salvator-X with H3 ES1.0, I have the
> following in my install script:
> 
>     DTB=arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795-es1-salvator-x.dtb
>     if [ ! -e $DTB ]; then
>         DTB=arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795-salvator-x.dtb
>     fi
> 
> If we change our mind, it means we can/should sprinkle some
> "#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_R8A7795_ES1" checks in the clk/pfc/sysc driver code?

Maybe it would.

Thanks for your explanation above. I think it reasonable to leave things
as-is and not introduce CONFIG_ARCH_R8A7795_ES1 for now.