Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] arm64: Add platform selection for BCM2835.

[Eric Anholt]

Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> writes:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 11:48:54PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 05:21:35PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> >> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 12:55:15PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> >> >> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> 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 <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>

It's in my for-next now.  Thanks!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature