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