Hi,
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 04:33:29PM +0200, Jonas Jensen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for the replies.
>
> What isn't commented below should already be fixed. I'll resubmit the
> entire set when it looks like there's nothing left to amend.
>
> On 13 June 2013 00:42, Olof Johansson <o...@lixom.net> wrote:
> > You should provide a commit message, ideally with a short introduction of
> > the
> > platform.
>
> Will do. I was thinking I should do that, this is the first time I
> used git format-patch / git send-email.
>
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/configs/moxart_uc7112lx_defconfig
> >
> > It'd be nice to keep the defconfig generic, and make sure to enable all
> > boards
> > in it -- we're generally OK with adding one defconfig per platform upstream
> > but
> > not more.
>
> Since MACH_UC7112LX is the only board right now, how can it "enable all
> boards"?
Yeah, that was more with respect to future use of the defconfig. So keeping it
generic in name for now (moxart_defconfig) is really all I am asking for.
> One way I can think of is to remove CONFIG_MACH_UC7112LX=y from
> defconfig and have it (and all future boards) "default y" in
> arch/arm/mach-moxart/Kconfig.
Enabling it in the defconfig is just fine, no need to change anything there at
this time.
> I focus on a single hardware, UC-7112-LX. There's at least one more
> board with only minor differences (RAM / flash size). But for now,
> MACH_UC7112LX is the one I have access to and can test. I think
> UC-7110 is already supported, that it would boot, just copy
> arch/arm/boot/dts/moxart-uc7112lx.dts and modify ranges for RAM and
> MTD. I want to leave this in a state where remaining hardware can
> easily be added, albeit by someone that isn't me :)
Sure, that's a fair stance.
> > If you multiplatform enable this, then you need to have a check in
> > moxart_idle_init() to make sure you're running on a moxart soc. Otherwise
> > this
> > will still be called and override the arm_pm_idle setting on other
> > platforms as
> > well.
>
> I can't find a good example of how other platforms do this, is a DT
> lookup an accepted solution? :
>
> static const struct of_device_id moxart_match[] = {
> { .compatible = "moxa,moxart" },
> { }
> };
>
> static int __init moxart_idle_init(void)
> {
> struct device_node *node;
>
> node = of_find_matching_node(NULL, moxart_match);
> if (!node)
> return -ENODEV;
>
> arm_pm_idle = moxart_idle;
> return 0;
> }
>
> arch_initcall(moxart_idle_init);
Easiest of all is if you have a "moxa,moxart" compatible field as the
most-specific one for your machine, then you can just do:
...
{
if (!of_machine_is_compatible("moxa,moxart"))
return -ENODEV;
arm_pm_idle = moxart_idle;
return 0;
}
-Olof
--
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/
