Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc/83xx: add support for mpc8306

[Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>]

On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 14:45 +0200, Filip Brozović wrote:
> On 4/3/2015 2:01 PM, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 12:44 +0200, Filip Brozovic wrote:
> >> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/83xx/Kconfig
> >
> >> +# used for gpio
> >> +config PPC_MPC830x
> >> +	bool
> >> +	select ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB
> >> +
> >> +config PPC_MPC8306
> >> +	bool
> >
> > To me these two new Kconfig symbols look pointless:
> > - they have no prompt, so one cannot set them manually;
> > - no other Kconfig symbol selects them;
> > - they do not default to 'y'.
> >
> > I'm not aware of a way to set these symbols to 'y' outside of those
> > three. Is there perhaps a way for kconfig to set these symbols to 'y'
> > that I have missed?
> >
> > Or do you expect to do one of these three things in a separate patch?
> >
> 
> The idea was that boards in the Kconfig file would select these symbols 
> in order to enable support for the 8306. I mainly wanted to get this 
> patch into mainline in order to make kernel maintenance for a couple of 
> custom in-house developed boards easier. Since these boards are not 
> widely available and our customers are unlikely to want to change and 
> recompile the kernel, I have so far leaned towards not including support 
> for them in mainline. As far as I can see, boards which are included in 
> mainline right now are mostly evaluation boards which are easily 
> available at most electronics distributors.
> 
> That being said, I don't know what the "official" stance on this is; is 
> adding custom boards encouraged regardless of their availability (e.g. 
> if I develop a custom board with the intention of only ever actually 
> making a single prototype for personal use, should I go and submit 
> patches so that support makes it into the mainline kernel?), or should 
> there be a minimum level of public interest before incorporating custom 
> boards into mainline? If it's the latter, I suppose a solution would be 
> to include support for the Freescale MPC8306SOM in mainline. Of course, 
> this has its own problems, since someone would have to write and 
> maintain it (and I don't have an MPC8306SOM nor the time needed to do 
> maintenance).

Custom boards are fine as long as someone will maintain them.

What are you using PPC_MPC8306 for in your custom board code?

-Scott