[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 5/5] ARM: sunxi: Remove sun4i and sun7i machine definitions
> I guess the /proc/cpuinfo thing just tip the scales to keeping the > minimal machines. I'll update the patches. I agree that having this data in cpuinfo is important, but I think this just begs for a way to get this data (or something equivalent) in cpuinfo *without* having a machine definition. Stefan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "linux-sunxi" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 5/5] ARM: sunxi: Remove sun4i and sun7i machine definitions
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 06:08:53PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 April 2014 17:04:36 Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >>
> >> -static void __init sunxi_dt_init(void)
> >> -{
> >> - of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
> >> -}
> >> -
> >> -static const char * const sunxi_board_dt_compat[] = {
> >> - "allwinner,sun4i-a10",
> >> - "allwinner,sun5i-a10s",
> >> - "allwinner,sun5i-a13",
> >> - NULL,
> >> -};
> >> -
> >> -DT_MACHINE_START(SUNXI_DT, "Allwinner A1X (Device Tree)")
> >> - .init_machine = sunxi_dt_init,
> >> - .dt_compat = sunxi_board_dt_compat,
> >> -MACHINE_END
> >> -
> >> static const char * const sun6i_board_dt_compat[] = {
> >> "allwinner,sun6i-a31",
> >> NULL,
> >
> > I'd like to hear more opinions on this. We could either rely
> > on the generic code, or we could keep the entry with just
> > the .dt_compat line and the name, so /proc/cpuinfo contains
> > a meaningful platform name.
> >
> > Either approach works for me, but I think we should do this
> > consistent across platforms. Olof, do you have an opinion?
>
> In reality, today, most platforms still need some out-of-tree stuff
> that usually goes into the mach directory on out of tree kernels. It
> also gives a place to stick the Kconfig entries, it's been nice to
> have them split out in per-platform Kconfigs instead of having them
> all modify and conflict the shared one.
>
> I know those aren't strong arguments to keep it, but given that all
> other things are more or less equal, it's a good a reason as any.
I guess the /proc/cpuinfo thing just tip the scales to keeping the
minimal machines. I'll update the patches.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 5/5] ARM: sunxi: Remove sun4i and sun7i machine definitions
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 April 2014 17:04:36 Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>
>> -static void __init sunxi_dt_init(void)
>> -{
>> - of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
>> -}
>> -
>> -static const char * const sunxi_board_dt_compat[] = {
>> - "allwinner,sun4i-a10",
>> - "allwinner,sun5i-a10s",
>> - "allwinner,sun5i-a13",
>> - NULL,
>> -};
>> -
>> -DT_MACHINE_START(SUNXI_DT, "Allwinner A1X (Device Tree)")
>> - .init_machine = sunxi_dt_init,
>> - .dt_compat = sunxi_board_dt_compat,
>> -MACHINE_END
>> -
>> static const char * const sun6i_board_dt_compat[] = {
>> "allwinner,sun6i-a31",
>> NULL,
>
> I'd like to hear more opinions on this. We could either rely
> on the generic code, or we could keep the entry with just
> the .dt_compat line and the name, so /proc/cpuinfo contains
> a meaningful platform name.
>
> Either approach works for me, but I think we should do this
> consistent across platforms. Olof, do you have an opinion?
In reality, today, most platforms still need some out-of-tree stuff
that usually goes into the mach directory on out of tree kernels. It
also gives a place to stick the Kconfig entries, it's been nice to
have them split out in per-platform Kconfigs instead of having them
all modify and conflict the shared one.
I know those aren't strong arguments to keep it, but given that all
other things are more or less equal, it's a good a reason as any.
But, I'm not picky either way.
-Olof
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 5/5] ARM: sunxi: Remove sun4i and sun7i machine definitions
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 06:02:51PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 April 2014 17:04:36 Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >
> > -static void __init sunxi_dt_init(void)
> > -{
> > - of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
> > -}
> > -
> > -static const char * const sunxi_board_dt_compat[] = {
> > - "allwinner,sun4i-a10",
> > - "allwinner,sun5i-a10s",
> > - "allwinner,sun5i-a13",
> > - NULL,
> > -};
> > -
> > -DT_MACHINE_START(SUNXI_DT, "Allwinner A1X (Device Tree)")
> > - .init_machine = sunxi_dt_init,
> > - .dt_compat = sunxi_board_dt_compat,
> > -MACHINE_END
> > -
> > static const char * const sun6i_board_dt_compat[] = {
> > "allwinner,sun6i-a31",
> > NULL,
>
> I'd like to hear more opinions on this. We could either rely
> on the generic code, or we could keep the entry with just
> the .dt_compat line and the name, so /proc/cpuinfo contains
> a meaningful platform name.
Ah! I haven't thought of /proc/cpuinfo. I agree that having something
meaningful in there would be much better.
I'll respin the patch if Olof agrees.
Thanks!
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
[linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH 5/5] ARM: sunxi: Remove sun4i and sun7i machine definitions
On Wednesday 23 April 2014 17:04:36 Maxime Ripard wrote:
>
> -static void __init sunxi_dt_init(void)
> -{
> - of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
> -}
> -
> -static const char * const sunxi_board_dt_compat[] = {
> - "allwinner,sun4i-a10",
> - "allwinner,sun5i-a10s",
> - "allwinner,sun5i-a13",
> - NULL,
> -};
> -
> -DT_MACHINE_START(SUNXI_DT, "Allwinner A1X (Device Tree)")
> - .init_machine = sunxi_dt_init,
> - .dt_compat = sunxi_board_dt_compat,
> -MACHINE_END
> -
> static const char * const sun6i_board_dt_compat[] = {
> "allwinner,sun6i-a31",
> NULL,
I'd like to hear more opinions on this. We could either rely
on the generic code, or we could keep the entry with just
the .dt_compat line and the name, so /proc/cpuinfo contains
a meaningful platform name.
Either approach works for me, but I think we should do this
consistent across platforms. Olof, do you have an opinion?
Arnd
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"linux-sunxi" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to linux-sunxi+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
