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

[Catalin Marinas]

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>