From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E198CC433E2 for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:26:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 833E22087D for ; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:26:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="mLsmYHvH"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="zL6F4Vrp" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 833E22087D Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=ti.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=Gs1+zSlc0NccVKwnp29AROUB7jI59hygKUFz0ZueoTs=; b=mLsmYHvHc7RVwqDFY0LQzZMcQ 5XVdcKj1vW6lZ2y+/YczL2FqAu2mPro38nzZ3fyKJIh7nNRbELPP3dNBQmf/bDpICw/jVSbi1pUwe jncOZlgqoi4rtvvUL7jsnMcTLV5hPwmsir1RsI8QgRUL3p58KYTuclOk7HmtUJOLNBrmeUVP1FtLi z3Wax0Z6mieBa7GWxBEnCn8t05yRpx7slWgH6S7z4N00QrlQR3zUpgxuCjgACeb2v0uCk3I7sMGRH jTez6K6q+w2UY/NfJEglKRc7ifNcReTbM+AJNyu4PzPHSxm0cQTwJALYvp2xWyrGnYkg1rdOmBFqw sbgGbSKPw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kFbks-0003Jd-Ta; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 11:25:42 +0000 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.142]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1kFbkn-0003JC-2G for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 08 Sep 2020 11:25:38 +0000 Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 088BPYo0125649; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:25:34 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1599564334; bh=ma5FyqGZzBv1gBvZ6mKpGD4wkyeCYZk4WZHIeT6RzQ0=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=zL6F4VrpL8vE5XQemBuoDuzb5SICWAuJ7B7FYKqmfcJYCKJFvmiDHEybu2r9/yPSa CIhde4yH0GdynLKmnSmLKYa1TSI+G3hxxW58MULRHU+2ptuffL4RyZ8eKFzIAtxNKt eyyUsJjjMtYPSrEqpzEZcBef4FzZR4asqpfiV33c= Received: from DLEE114.ent.ti.com (dlee114.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.25]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 088BPYR5062754 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:25:34 -0500 Received: from DLEE101.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.31) by DLEE114.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:25:34 -0500 Received: from fllv0040.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.20) by DLEE101.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1979.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:25:34 -0500 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0040.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 088BPYOu130695; Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:25:34 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2020 06:25:34 -0500 From: Nishanth Menon To: Tero Kristo Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Initial support for Texas Instrument's J7200 Platform Message-ID: <20200908112534.t5bgrjf7y3a6l2ss@akan> References: <20200827065144.17683-1-lokeshvutla@ti.com> <20200907141427.ti6r3h6namv2hezw@akan> <9d8d6980-0b22-da45-52af-474c6d96c873@ti.com> <20200907234833.r376hhl64q55gd7o@akan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200908_072537_255429_F0D4418A X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 24.33 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Device Tree Mailing List , Grygorii Strashko , Lokesh Vutla , Sekhar Nori , Rob Herring , Linux ARM Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org 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