Catalin Marinas <catalin.mari...@arm.com> writes: > 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>
It's in my for-next now. Thanks!
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
