On Tuesday 08 December 2015 11:03:20 xuejiancheng wrote:
> >>
> >> I think we should come up with a way to handle this in general for
> >> ARCH_HISI. It's not problem to have a couple of sub-options, but I'd
> >> rather not have one for each SoC because I'm sure that hisilicon has
> >> made dozens or possibly hundreds of ARM based SoCs that belong into
> >> a couple of families.
> >
> > Agree with you.
> >
> >>
> >> The individual selection of IP blocks is not that important, because
> >> those tend to just be generic device drivers that we can enable on
> >> any platform using the defconfig files.
> >>
> >> You said that ARCH_HI3519 and HIP04 have an identical system controller,
> >> but it's different for Hi36xx, correct?
> >
> > No. The system controller of HI3519 is also different from HIP04. Maybe I
> > gave you
> > wrong descriptions. Sorry about that.
> >
> >>
> >> So maybe we can generalize the HIP04 option to include all chips with
> >> that system controller as they appear to share a common ancestry regardless
> >> of the target market?
> >>
> >
> > I agree that we generalize some options regardless of the product line and
> > target market.
> >
> >> The Hi35xx family includes some rather older chips as well based on ARM9
> >> etc, correct? Are they closely related to the new one as well, or do they
> >> just share the name?
> >
> > Yes. It's correct. They may share some IP blocks. But they may be very
> > different
> > from the new one for the arch code. I also don't think it's a good idea to
> > make
> > them share the same name.
>
> I will use ARCH_HISI instead of ARCH_HI3519.
>
>
Do you mean you want to remove the other options as well?
We should do this consistently at least within the Kconfig file.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
