linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>
To: Tirumala Marri <tmarri@apm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] APM821xx: Add support for new SoC APM821xx
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 10:45:26 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100906154526.GA515@lixom.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <01bb9090932e6984c887273078fd586f@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 10:19:53PM -0700, Tirumala Marri wrote:
> >
> > Then the device tree identifier, and the cpu setup functions, etc,
> > should indicate
> > 464, not APM821xx.
> This is new SoC based on 464 cpu core. All the previous SoC device tree
> CPU portion uses SoC name.

Hm, you're right. Confusing.

Still, the cpu setup functions would make more sense to have the core
name in, not the SoC name. Especially since multiple SoC families might
use the same core, etc.

> > Also, why add yet another defconfig? Isn't the eval board similar to
> > many others and can be supported with just a tweak of some existing
> > common defconfig instead?
> >
> Every new board needs new defconfig. And it is not same as others. It has
> Different features from other.

Actually, it doesn't. Linus has had a strong pushback to the ARM community
because of this mentality. arch/powerpc already has 100 defconfigs.

The use of devicetrees means that only the actual devices on your board,
will be configured, so it doesn't do any damage to compile in more drivers
than you happen to have. Thus generating a defconfig that is a superset
of some of your more common boards, or for example one per family of boards.

One of the arguments for having custom defconfigs per board is that customers that
base designs off of your eval board needs them. But they will make other changes
to the config to add drivers for whatever additional devices they have anyway.


-Olof

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-09-06 15:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-09-02 21:57 [PATCH] APM821xx: Add support for new SoC APM821xx tmarri
2010-09-03  2:08 ` Josh Boyer
2010-09-03 20:38   ` Tirumala Marri
2010-09-05 22:23     ` Olof Johansson
2010-09-06  5:19       ` Tirumala Marri
2010-09-06 14:15         ` Josh Boyer
2010-09-06 14:43           ` Tirumala Marri
2010-09-06 15:45         ` Olof Johansson [this message]
2010-09-08 17:27           ` Tirumala Marri
2010-09-13 13:44           ` Josh Boyer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100906154526.GA515@lixom.net \
    --to=olof@lixom.net \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=tmarri@apm.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).