From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxime Ripard Subject: Re: [linux-sunxi] [RFC PATCH 2/9] ARM: sunxi: add Allwinner ARMv5 SoCs Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:15:43 +0100 Message-ID: <20180122121543.aqs56ur655w24v7u@flea.lan> References: <20180119231735.61504-1-icenowy@aosc.io> <20180119231735.61504-3-icenowy@aosc.io> <76DC4CD7-4A07-40C7-80A8-1C2D177E8109@aosc.io> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="pbr6iuiebiqnahw6" Return-path: Received: from mail.free-electrons.com ([62.4.15.54]:49981 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751099AbeAVMPp (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Jan 2018 07:15:45 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Julian Calaby Cc: icenowy@aosc.io, "Mailing List, Arm" , devicetree , linux-sunxi , Marc Zyngier , Linus Walleij , Daniel Lezcano , Russell King , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Chen-Yu Tsai , "open list:COMMON CLK FRAMEWORK" --pbr6iuiebiqnahw6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 02:22:06PM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote: > Hi Icenowy, >=20 > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > > > > > > =E4=BA=8E 2018=E5=B9=B41=E6=9C=8820=E6=97=A5 GMT+08:00 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D= =8811:06:40, Julian Calaby =E5=86=99=E5=88=B0: > >>Hi Icenowy, > >> > >>On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Icenowy Zheng > >>wrote: > >>> Add option for Allwinner ARMv5 SoCs and a SoC suniv (which is a die > >>used > >>> for many new F-series products, including F1C100A, F1C100s, F1C200s, > >>> F1C500, F1C600). > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng > >>> --- > >>> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig | 13 +++++++++++++ > >>> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Makefile | 1 + > >>> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sunxi_v5.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+) > >>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sunxi_v5.c > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig > >>b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig > >>> index 65509a35935f..78ac9ce70641 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig > >>> @@ -59,3 +59,16 @@ config MACH_SUN9I > >>> select ARM_GIC > >>> > >>> endif > >>> + > >>> +menuconfig ARCH_SUNXI_V5 > >>> + bool "Allwinner SoCs" > >> > >>That name seems a little too generic. Maybe "Allwinner ARMv5 SoCs"? > > > > This is already required by armv5. > > > > Allwinner currently has only ARMv5,7,8 SoCs. ARMv8 is under > > arm64 architecture, and ARMv5 and v7 cannot be selected at the same tim= e. >=20 > I'm going to try to back my way out of this hole by saying that they > should be more descriptive anyway (and it'll give clueless kconfiggers > a hint as to why they're not seeing their SoC listed) >=20 > However you're right, if both cannot be visible at the same time, then > it really doesn't matter if they both have the same name. >=20 > Sorry for the noise, This is definitely not noise, and I agree with you, having whether you're enabling the v5 or v7 SoCs will hopefully allow to end up in a situation where you search for hours why it won't boot. Maxime --=20 Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com --pbr6iuiebiqnahw6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEE0VqZU19dR2zEVaqr0rTAlCFNr3QFAlpl1e4ACgkQ0rTAlCFN r3TEuw//Z/mFfyvXgHpZlXa9yDz4i8A7kx7TZU8zPyc5ZhfcJ8S/pzM1tZXDrEeW jQL4s50tcFBY2Gph2IY9cmkVDEDwpWZu9D32VyJ6MCp/zItB1Z6s682OhHDSM5pM JDjqB3ZwiejH1PmbgWpIgIcUxPDqY6QH65nl02aBc/M6F6btPmIWTJQmmrFFuYcM Cy13Jm8ebzGFlLEY0OXQVZ1ZX5FAD4DTfmZB1ounaLvd0wIWAcGHtxO7QOZcYSfI X+8KoapSjGGvYzDnRwYeHTAx0CD2EM35r/S1dYo8n1qmq4OaBb3+qW97i7fz3Sr1 wdBmp77N29BAVrUDXHw7Z7W0u5Y6NWsmmdMAe/NQ9AARUgREtxoadVP9T+vvSPhx iDcFFTE/SKI1OMKn3NJIwkawusjpfk+YZ/wHofNqisoTu1EnqiLhAxWIO4/KUhHH oQWtBX2dNaMLWeSsbtwH8yOF9YDfdRYRyGKg5T4XDV3buD3v7gX0dEvWevFI8pfc JEX2eqts71jj1w9vK2SAyuGoTnU6f7POe2q7c411d9JRJf0qQMnL6nZKVUj2GXN4 tAYmq0fFM9U67QM0xBlCs5xcLs1XrvfWrpS9z3DZXyeyEIXKkuDnwhJ3WCJhraMO D/2Y+kwNSPh1vM3YkxxnrraxiEwtEeIQmlPzmleYN55OHkgD89s= =2iif -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --pbr6iuiebiqnahw6-- From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 13:15:43 +0100 Subject: [linux-sunxi] [RFC PATCH 2/9] ARM: sunxi: add Allwinner ARMv5 SoCs In-Reply-To: References: <20180119231735.61504-1-icenowy@aosc.io> <20180119231735.61504-3-icenowy@aosc.io> <76DC4CD7-4A07-40C7-80A8-1C2D177E8109@aosc.io> Message-ID: <20180122121543.aqs56ur655w24v7u@flea.lan> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 02:22:06PM +1100, Julian Calaby wrote: > Hi Icenowy, > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Icenowy Zheng wrote: > > > > > > ? 2018?1?20? GMT+08:00 ??11:06:40, Julian Calaby ??: > >>Hi Icenowy, > >> > >>On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Icenowy Zheng > >>wrote: > >>> Add option for Allwinner ARMv5 SoCs and a SoC suniv (which is a die > >>used > >>> for many new F-series products, including F1C100A, F1C100s, F1C200s, > >>> F1C500, F1C600). > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Icenowy Zheng > >>> --- > >>> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig | 13 +++++++++++++ > >>> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Makefile | 1 + > >>> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sunxi_v5.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 3 files changed, 36 insertions(+) > >>> create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sunxi_v5.c > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig > >>b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig > >>> index 65509a35935f..78ac9ce70641 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig > >>> @@ -59,3 +59,16 @@ config MACH_SUN9I > >>> select ARM_GIC > >>> > >>> endif > >>> + > >>> +menuconfig ARCH_SUNXI_V5 > >>> + bool "Allwinner SoCs" > >> > >>That name seems a little too generic. Maybe "Allwinner ARMv5 SoCs"? > > > > This is already required by armv5. > > > > Allwinner currently has only ARMv5,7,8 SoCs. ARMv8 is under > > arm64 architecture, and ARMv5 and v7 cannot be selected at the same time. > > I'm going to try to back my way out of this hole by saying that they > should be more descriptive anyway (and it'll give clueless kconfiggers > a hint as to why they're not seeing their SoC listed) > > However you're right, if both cannot be visible at the same time, then > it really doesn't matter if they both have the same name. > > Sorry for the noise, This is definitely not noise, and I agree with you, having whether you're enabling the v5 or v7 SoCs will hopefully allow to end up in a situation where you search for hours why it won't boot. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: