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

[Eric Anholt]

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:
>> >> 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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature