From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hauke@hauke-m.de (Hauke Mehrtens) Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 22:33:46 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] bcm53xx: initial support for the BCM5301/BCM470X SoC with ARM CPU In-Reply-To: <20130724225443.GA29801@glitch> References: <1373982727-5492-1-git-send-email-hauke@hauke-m.de> <20130716151435.GB3871@linaro.org> <2043662.BcW19XTTMG@lenovo> <20130723184907.GA6811@ohporter.com> <20130723192203.GC6811@ohporter.com> <51EF1B8C.9020304@broadcom.com> <51F02947.7020301@hauke-m.de> <20130724225443.GA29801@glitch> Message-ID: <51F18BAA.1050806@hauke-m.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/25/2013 12:54 AM, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 09:21:43PM +0200, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: >> On 07/24/2013 02:44 AM, Domenico Andreoli wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 24, 2013, Hauke Mehrtens >> > wrote: >>>> On 07/19/2013 03:36 AM, Domenico Andreoli wrote: >>>>> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 05:35:21PM +0200, Hauke Mehrtens wrote: >>>>>> On 07/16/2013 05:20 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-bcm53xx/Kconfig >>> b/arch/arm/mach-bcm53xx/Kconfig >>>>>>>> new file mode 100644 >>>>>>>> index 0000000..1e16e87 >>>>>>>> --- /dev/null >>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-bcm53xx/Kconfig >>>>>>>> @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ >>>>>>>> +config ARCH_BCM53XX >>>>>>>> + bool "Broadcom BCM47XX / BCM53XX ARM SoC" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So the directory is named mach-bcm53xx, but you also handle BCM47xx >>>>>>> SoCs. This doesn't sound really easy to follow. >>>>> >>>>> At the time of the BCM281XX merge we considered that such directories >>> would >>>>> mostly contain board files only, being these new entries DT based. Hence >>>>> the choice of mach-bcm to collect all of them. >>>>> >>>>> I think you should then put this stuff there. >>>> >>>> So you think I should move the file from >>>> arch/arm/mach-bcm53xx/bcm53xx.c to arch/arm/mach-bcm/bcm53xx.c ? >>> >>> yes >>> >>> this looks more comsistent with the actual soc name: >>> arch/arm/mach-bcm/bcm530xx.c >>> >>> but I find also acceptable the complete name of the "parent" soc (as I'm >>> doing with the bcm4760), so: arch/arm/mach-bcm/bcm53010.c >> >> I do not think these Broadcom ARM SoCs (bcm4760, BCM5301X, bcm11351) >> have more in common than the vendor name, so I do not think it is a good >> idea to place them all at mach-bcm. > > In an ideal DT-only world (as basically is for Broadcom ARM SoCs), whatever > two or more SoCs share can hopefully modelled in a driver and as such > would go in the drivers/ subtree. What's left is really SoC specific and, > again hopefully, very minimal. > > There should not be any SoC so weird to require a whole subdirectory full > of that SoC specific stuff. So grouping everything by vendor name looks > quite appealing to me. > > Sharing the same subdir requires people working in it to talk and find > agreements some more than the sparsely populated subdir did (because there > is not a single maintainer who owns it). I think this is a big advantage > Broadcomers can start with right now. I want to be able to build the BCM5301X SoC without building the current CONFIG_ARCH_BCM, so what name do you suggest for board_bcm.o ? My plan would be to make CONFIG_ARCH_BCM just activate the Broadcom submenu, but not build any code. Then the list of Broadcom SoCs is opened like CONFIG_ARCH_BCM5301X and the "old" CONFIG_ARCH_BCM. Hauke