From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from kirsty.vergenet.net ([202.4.237.240]:46671 "EHLO kirsty.vergenet.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757317AbdELH3a (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 May 2017 03:29:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:29:26 +0200 From: Simon Horman To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Magnus Damm , Yoshihiro Shimoda , Kuninori Morimoto , Laurent Pinchart , Wolfram Sang , Sjoerd Simons , Linux-Renesas , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: dts: r8a7795: salvator-x: Add support for R-Car H3 ES2.0 Message-ID: <20170512072925.GB27979@verge.net.au> References: <1494503934-23367-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <1494503934-23367-3-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <20170511145324.GC21895@verge.net.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-renesas-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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 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 > > >> --- 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 $DTB ]; then > DTB=arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/r8a7795-salvator-x.dtb > fi > > If we change our mind, it means we can/should sprinkle some > "#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_R8A7795_ES1" checks in the clk/pfc/sysc driver code? Maybe it would. Thanks for your explanation above. I think it reasonable to leave things as-is and not introduce CONFIG_ARCH_R8A7795_ES1 for now. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: horms@verge.net.au (Simon Horman) Date: Fri, 12 May 2017 09:29:26 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v3 2/3] arm64: dts: r8a7795: salvator-x: Add support for R-Car H3 ES2.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1494503934-23367-1-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <1494503934-23367-3-git-send-email-geert+renesas@glider.be> <20170511145324.GC21895@verge.net.au> Message-ID: <20170512072925.GB27979@verge.net.au> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 05:18:00PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Simon Horman wrote: > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 01:58:53PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> Split off support for Salvator-X boards with the ES1.x revision of the > >> R-Car H3 SoC into a separate file. The main r8a7795-salvator-x.dts file > >> now corresponds to Salvator-X with R-Car H3 ES2.0 or later. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven > > >> --- a/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/Makefile > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/boot/dts/renesas/Makefile > >> @@ -1,4 +1,5 @@ > >> dtb-$(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.