Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Initial support for Texas Instrument's J7200 Platform

From: Nishanth Menon <nm@ti.com>
To: Tero Kristo <t-kristo@ti.com>
Cc: Device Tree Mailing List <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
	Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@ti.com>,
	Lokesh Vutla <lokeshvutla@ti.com>, Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM Mailing List <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Initial support for Texas Instrument's J7200 Platform
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:25:34 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200908112534.t5bgrjf7y3a6l2ss@akan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d89cf38a-da57-b1ca-dc80-0c2cca2ada38@ti.com>

On 12:55-20200908, Tero Kristo wrote:
> On 08/09/2020 02:48, Nishanth Menon wrote:
> > On 19:53-20200907, Lokesh Vutla wrote:
> > 
> > [... I should have responded to the correct patch..]
> > > > Besides yaml and compatibility acks, there are a few ancillary
> > > > comments to fix up.. Kconfig -> I think we should either stay with
> > > > status quo and create a new config option per SoC OR rename the
> > > > config to be generic (using j7200 with j721e SoC config is not very
> > > 
> > > Please suggest your preference here. I guess separate defconfig for J7200?
> > 
> > 
> > I was just scanning through remaining arm64 additions to see what others have
> > done. We seem to have two options here:
> > a) Just use ARCH_K3 and no specific SoC configs
> > b) Specific SoC configs
> > In both cases, use += instead of \ to incrementally add dtbs
> > 
> > We have been going with (b) so far, Tero: any specific preference here?
> > 
> > (a) has the aspect of simplicity and reduced dependencies.
> > (b) Allows downstream kernels to save just a little bit and focus purely
> >      on SoC of interest.
> 
> If possible, I think we should aim for a) at least for now. We have the soc
> type detection code in place anyways that can be used on driver level.
> Creating compile time flags should be avoided imo as much as possible and
> just go with runtime detection. I can't see why saving maybe a megabyte of
> memory with SoC specific kernels would be of any importance on K3 arch with
> the memory amounts we have in our disposal.

Agreed on (a). I see one other user (SND) beyond dtb Makefile, So, to
order this right, lets first switch the users over from SOC config
builds to ARCH_K3, before we drop the Kconfig definition/defconfig
update in a follow on rc/version.

-- 
Regards,
Nishanth Menon
Key (0xDDB5849D1736249D) / Fingerprint: F8A2 8693 54EB 8232 17A3  1A34 DDB5 849D 1736 249D

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel