Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1422669 > unrolled thread

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

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] arm64: Add platform selection for BCM2835. Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net> - 2016-06-15 08:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] arm64: Add platform selection for BCM2835. Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> - 2016-06-15 10:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] arm64: Add platform selection for BCM2835. Eric Anholt <eric@anholt.net> - 2016-06-16 00:00 +0200

#1422669 — Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] arm64: Add platform selection for BCM2835.

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 05:21:35PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes:
>> > On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 12:55:15PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote:
>> >> Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> 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?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1422764

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1423508

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes:

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

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

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web