From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] ARM: EXYNOS: no more support non-DT for EXYNOS SoCs Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:55:27 +0200 Message-ID: <201304101555.27984.arnd@arndb.de> References: <51642dab.e844440a.0ad1.ffffc13f@mx.google.com> <201304101459.07263.arnd@arndb.de> <51656D2D.7060004@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:55480 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760323Ab3DJNzd (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Apr 2013 09:55:33 -0400 In-Reply-To: <51656D2D.7060004@samsung.com> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Sylwester Nawrocki Cc: Kukjin Kim , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, 'Thomas Abraham' , 'Kyungmin Park' , 'Olof Johansson' On Wednesday 10 April 2013, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > Hmm, it turns out we are still actively using some boards based on > Exynos4210 EVT0 SoCs. And since it seems unlikely the patches from > Tomasz [1] adding basic DT support for those will get merged for > 3.10, it would be a bit inconvenient to remove the ATAGS support > now, leaving Exynos4210 Rev. 0 not supported at all. I still have hope to get those included. > Not sure what's others opinion on that, and what would be an advantage > of removing non-dt support for Exynos now, rather than in 3.11, vs. any > possible inconvenience and regressions this could cause. A multiplatform kernel will not work on an ATAGS based Exynos platform, but I think we can have it both ways and allow either multiplatform DT-only or single-platform with both DT and ATAGS in 3.10. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:55:27 +0200 Subject: [PATCH RESEND] ARM: EXYNOS: no more support non-DT for EXYNOS SoCs In-Reply-To: <51656D2D.7060004@samsung.com> References: <51642dab.e844440a.0ad1.ffffc13f@mx.google.com> <201304101459.07263.arnd@arndb.de> <51656D2D.7060004@samsung.com> Message-ID: <201304101555.27984.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wednesday 10 April 2013, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > Hmm, it turns out we are still actively using some boards based on > Exynos4210 EVT0 SoCs. And since it seems unlikely the patches from > Tomasz [1] adding basic DT support for those will get merged for > 3.10, it would be a bit inconvenient to remove the ATAGS support > now, leaving Exynos4210 Rev. 0 not supported at all. I still have hope to get those included. > Not sure what's others opinion on that, and what would be an advantage > of removing non-dt support for Exynos now, rather than in 3.11, vs. any > possible inconvenience and regressions this could cause. A multiplatform kernel will not work on an ATAGS based Exynos platform, but I think we can have it both ways and allow either multiplatform DT-only or single-platform with both DT and ATAGS in 3.10. Arnd