From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kukjin Kim Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] ARM: EXYNOS: no more support non-DT for EXYNOS SoCs Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:05:48 +0900 Message-ID: <516571BC.9030909@samsung.com> References: <51642dab.e844440a.0ad1.ffffc13f@mx.google.com> <201304101459.07263.arnd@arndb.de> <51656D2D.7060004@samsung.com> <201304101555.27984.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:45174 "EHLO mail-pd0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759722Ab3DJOFy (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Apr 2013 10:05:54 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x11so286357pdj.10 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 07:05:54 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201304101555.27984.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Sylwester Nawrocki , Kukjin Kim , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, 'Thomas Abraham' , 'Kyungmin Park' , 'Olof Johansson' On 04/10/13 22:55, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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. > I agree and I asked Tomasz to re-send universal dt patch. >> 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. > I think, if possible, keeping both way would be nice to us. Thanks. - Kukjin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 23:05:48 +0900 Subject: [PATCH RESEND] ARM: EXYNOS: no more support non-DT for EXYNOS SoCs In-Reply-To: <201304101555.27984.arnd@arndb.de> References: <51642dab.e844440a.0ad1.ffffc13f@mx.google.com> <201304101459.07263.arnd@arndb.de> <51656D2D.7060004@samsung.com> <201304101555.27984.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: <516571BC.9030909@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/10/13 22:55, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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. > I agree and I asked Tomasz to re-send universal dt patch. >> 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. > I think, if possible, keeping both way would be nice to us. Thanks. - Kukjin