From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/02] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 - first shot
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 19:57:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201205041957.14205.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120503144645.6390.62303.sendpatchset@w520>
On Thursday 03 May 2012, Magnus Damm wrote:
> mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 - first shot
>
> [PATCH 01/02] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 SoC base support
> [PATCH 02/02] mach-shmobile: KZM9D board prototype support
>
> This series adds experimental Emma Mobile EV2 support to
> mach-shmobile. Yet another dual core Cortex-A9 SoC.
>
> At this point only serial and timer is supported. Future work
> includes GPIO, network device, SMP and DT support. If possible
> it would be nice to use the common clocks on this platform.
>
> To boot this on actual hardware you also need the following:
> "[PATCH] serial8250-em: Emma Mobile UART driver V2"
> "[PATCH] clocksource: em_sti: Emma Mobile STI driver"
>
> Any reason to not put this in mach-shmobile?
Well, from all I can tell it shares basically zero code with the
rest of mach-shmobile, so I would be more comfortable with creating
a new mach-emma directory for this.
Clearly you have an interest in building it into the same kernel
as the shmobile/rmobile platforms, but there seems to be little
technical reason to keep them together. Since we are still missing
a bit of infrastructure to actually build multiple platform
directories together, how about doing this similar to some of
the mach-s3c24* directories:?
You can have a single Kconfig entry for shmobile and emma, but
leave the code in separate directories, and just refer to the
arch/arm/mach-shmobile/include/mach/ directory for the global
headers (they are obviously identical right now). The additions
to mach/common.h can easily become a local header file instead
of getting listed in mach/*.h. I believe you don't actually need
the other headers you currently include (mach/hardware.h, mach/irqs.h),
so it would be completely standalone aside from the header files
that are required for building, and it can still be built
together with shmobile.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 00/02] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 - first shot
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 19:57:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201205041957.14205.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120503144645.6390.62303.sendpatchset@w520>
On Thursday 03 May 2012, Magnus Damm wrote:
> mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 - first shot
>
> [PATCH 01/02] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 SoC base support
> [PATCH 02/02] mach-shmobile: KZM9D board prototype support
>
> This series adds experimental Emma Mobile EV2 support to
> mach-shmobile. Yet another dual core Cortex-A9 SoC.
>
> At this point only serial and timer is supported. Future work
> includes GPIO, network device, SMP and DT support. If possible
> it would be nice to use the common clocks on this platform.
>
> To boot this on actual hardware you also need the following:
> "[PATCH] serial8250-em: Emma Mobile UART driver V2"
> "[PATCH] clocksource: em_sti: Emma Mobile STI driver"
>
> Any reason to not put this in mach-shmobile?
Well, from all I can tell it shares basically zero code with the
rest of mach-shmobile, so I would be more comfortable with creating
a new mach-emma directory for this.
Clearly you have an interest in building it into the same kernel
as the shmobile/rmobile platforms, but there seems to be little
technical reason to keep them together. Since we are still missing
a bit of infrastructure to actually build multiple platform
directories together, how about doing this similar to some of
the mach-s3c24* directories:?
You can have a single Kconfig entry for shmobile and emma, but
leave the code in separate directories, and just refer to the
arch/arm/mach-shmobile/include/mach/ directory for the global
headers (they are obviously identical right now). The additions
to mach/common.h can easily become a local header file instead
of getting listed in mach/*.h. I believe you don't actually need
the other headers you currently include (mach/hardware.h, mach/irqs.h),
so it would be completely standalone aside from the header files
that are required for building, and it can still be built
together with shmobile.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, horms@verge.net.au,
linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rjw@sisk.pl, lethal@linux-sh.org,
olof@lixom.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/02] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 - first shot
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 19:57:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201205041957.14205.arnd@arndb.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120503144645.6390.62303.sendpatchset@w520>
On Thursday 03 May 2012, Magnus Damm wrote:
> mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 - first shot
>
> [PATCH 01/02] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 SoC base support
> [PATCH 02/02] mach-shmobile: KZM9D board prototype support
>
> This series adds experimental Emma Mobile EV2 support to
> mach-shmobile. Yet another dual core Cortex-A9 SoC.
>
> At this point only serial and timer is supported. Future work
> includes GPIO, network device, SMP and DT support. If possible
> it would be nice to use the common clocks on this platform.
>
> To boot this on actual hardware you also need the following:
> "[PATCH] serial8250-em: Emma Mobile UART driver V2"
> "[PATCH] clocksource: em_sti: Emma Mobile STI driver"
>
> Any reason to not put this in mach-shmobile?
Well, from all I can tell it shares basically zero code with the
rest of mach-shmobile, so I would be more comfortable with creating
a new mach-emma directory for this.
Clearly you have an interest in building it into the same kernel
as the shmobile/rmobile platforms, but there seems to be little
technical reason to keep them together. Since we are still missing
a bit of infrastructure to actually build multiple platform
directories together, how about doing this similar to some of
the mach-s3c24* directories:?
You can have a single Kconfig entry for shmobile and emma, but
leave the code in separate directories, and just refer to the
arch/arm/mach-shmobile/include/mach/ directory for the global
headers (they are obviously identical right now). The additions
to mach/common.h can easily become a local header file instead
of getting listed in mach/*.h. I believe you don't actually need
the other headers you currently include (mach/hardware.h, mach/irqs.h),
so it would be completely standalone aside from the header files
that are required for building, and it can still be built
together with shmobile.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-04 19:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-03 14:46 [PATCH 00/02] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 - first shot Magnus Damm
2012-05-03 14:46 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-03 14:46 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-03 14:46 ` [PATCH 01/02] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 SoC base support Magnus Damm
2012-05-03 14:46 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-03 14:46 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-04 13:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-04 13:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-04 13:07 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-04 19:47 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-04 19:47 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-04 19:47 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-08 16:56 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-08 16:56 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-08 16:56 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-08 19:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-08 19:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-08 19:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-03 14:47 ` [PATCH 02/02] mach-shmobile: KZM9D board prototype support Magnus Damm
2012-05-03 14:47 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-03 14:47 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-04 13:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-04 13:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-04 13:14 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-03 19:23 ` [PATCH 00/02] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 - first shot Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-05-03 19:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-05-03 19:23 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-05-04 19:57 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2012-05-04 19:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-04 19:57 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-04 21:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-05-04 21:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-05-04 21:16 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-05-05 7:22 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-05 7:22 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-05 7:22 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-05 19:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-05-05 19:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-05-05 19:08 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-05-05 19:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-05 19:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-05 19:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-05 19:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-05-05 19:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-05-05 19:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2012-05-05 19:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-05 19:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-05 19:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-06 14:23 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-06 14:23 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-06 14:23 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-08 20:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-08 20:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-08 20:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-05-09 7:57 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-05-09 7:57 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-05-09 7:57 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-05-09 8:12 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-09 8:12 ` Magnus Damm
2012-05-09 8:12 ` Magnus Damm
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201205041957.14205.arnd@arndb.de \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.