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: >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms >> >> index 7ef1d05..ea88402 100644 >> >> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms >> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms >> >> @@ -13,6 +13,19 @@ config ARCH_ALPINE >> >> This enables support for the Annapurna Labs Alpine >> >> Soc family. >> >> >> >> +config ARCH_BCM2835 >> >> + bool "Broadcom BCM2835 family" >> >> + select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB >> >> + select CLKSRC_OF >> >> + select PINCTRL >> >> + select PINCTRL_BCM2835 >> >> + select ARM_AMBA >> >> + select ARM_TIMER_SP804 >> >> + select HAVE_ARM_ARCH_TIMER >> >> + help >> >> + This enables support for the Broadcom BCM2837 SoC. > > Even the BCM number is inconsistent here. Well, given the past chip numbers, we could call the family's Kconfig ARCH_BCM283X, and for now arm64 would only do the 2837 in the family. Back when I was doing 2836, other maintainers agreed that renaming all of the ARCH_BCM2835 in the tree to BCM283X was pointless thrashing. >> >> + 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.