From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753415AbcFOIHk (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2016 04:07:40 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:35028 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751901AbcFOIHf (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jun 2016 04:07:35 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:07:30 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: Eric Anholt Cc: linux-rpi-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Will Deacon , open list , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Gerd Hoffmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] arm64: Add platform selection for BCM2835. Message-ID: <20160615080730.GA18868@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1464934708-24769-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <1464934708-24769-5-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <20160603112721.GC1128@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <87bn3gu3to.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> <20160608091219.GA16322@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <87h9d1x59s.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> <20160610095633.GA14961@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <87d1njq755.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87d1njq755.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:48:54PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > Catalin Marinas writes: > > > On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 05:21:35PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > >> Catalin Marinas writes: > >> > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 12:55:15PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > >> >> Catalin Marinas writes: > >> >> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 08:18:23AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >> >> >> + This SoC is used in the Raspberry Pi 3 device. > >> >> > > >> >> > I thought we would just use ARCH_BCM, or is it too generic? > >> >> > >> >> Consensus last time around seemed to be to drop adding ARCH_BCM, in > >> >> favor of patch 1 of the series. > >> > > >> > I may have missed that discussion. My point was about consistency with > >> > existing ARCH_* definitions in the arm64 Kconfig.platforms. I can see > >> > why it's easier for you since some drivers are built based on > >> > ARCH_BCM2835. Looking at drivers/clk/bcm/Makefile, there is an > >> > inconsistent mix of CLK_BCM_* and ARCH_BCM_*. I would rather have a new > >> > CLK_BCM2835 that's selected/enabled accordingly (maybe simply depending > >> > on ARCH_BCM). > >> > >> So I introduce a new ARCH_BCM here, that selects the just the 283x > >> family's core drivers? That seems strange, but I'm willing if that's > >> what you want. > > > > I'll leave this decision to the arm-soc guys. What I want to avoid is > > another ARCH_BCM283[89] when some clock or other device changes in a > > future revision of this board (RPi4?). I also don't want fine-grained > > SoC configuration *within* the arch/arm64 Kconfigs but rather just a > > family ARCH_* entry with selectable individual drivers based on the SoC > > revision you target (in case you want to avoid single Image). > > > > We should in general try to give drivers their own Kconfig entries > > separate from ARCH_* ones (with a "depend on ARCH_*" and default y if > > you want it enabled). > > OK, we haven't added separate ARCH_BCM283* for the 3 chip revs so far, > so I think what you want is actually the status quo, and we're in > serious agreement. The name for the family just happens to be > ARCH_BCM2835. > > Any chance we could get an ack on this? If you need one ;) (arm-soc is maintaining this file): Acked-by: Catalin Marinas