All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com (Suravee Suthikulanit)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] arm64: amd-seattle: Adding device tree for AMD Seattle platform
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:07:49 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <544F9525.80304@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <544ED462.20601@suse.de>

On 10/27/2014 6:25 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 27.10.14 15:29, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
>> On 10/26/2014 9:08 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>> This option doesn't exist in upstream kernels, does it? Why not just
>>>>>>> make it dtb-y?
>>>>>
>>>>> CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE is being added one hunk above.:)
>>> Oops:).
>>>
>>> I'm not convinced we need a config option just for the sake of
>>> compiling a device tree though.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>
>> Eventually, we would add other device driver selections when
>> CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE=y. At this point, those drivers are still not ready.
>
> Could you please give me some examples of drivers that would depend on
> CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE? I like the current way things work without the need
> for such an option, where everything's implemented purely as drivers you
> can opt in our out of.
>
> You don't have a CONFIG_ARCH_SB7XX on x86 either, right? ;)
>
>
> Alex
>

I am not saying that device drivers need to depend on 
CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE. I am thinking along the line of an easy way to 
enable SOC without having to manually select each of the required 
drivers to support the SOC. An example is the "ARCH_VEXPRESS".

Suravee

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Suravee Suthikulanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
To: "Alexander Graf" <agraf@suse.de>, "Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>
Cc: "mark.rutland@arm.com" <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Thomas Lendacky <Thomas.Lendacky@amd.com>,
	Joel Schopp <Joel.Schopp@amd.com>,
	"marc.zyngier@arm.com" <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
	"catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	"liviu.dudau@arm.com" <liviu.dudau@arm.com>,
	"<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"will.deacon@arm.com" <will.deacon@arm.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: amd-seattle: Adding device tree for AMD Seattle platform
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:07:49 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <544F9525.80304@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <544ED462.20601@suse.de>

On 10/27/2014 6:25 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
> On 27.10.14 15:29, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
>> On 10/26/2014 9:08 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>> This option doesn't exist in upstream kernels, does it? Why not just
>>>>>>> make it dtb-y?
>>>>>
>>>>> CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE is being added one hunk above.:)
>>> Oops:).
>>>
>>> I'm not convinced we need a config option just for the sake of
>>> compiling a device tree though.
>>>
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>
>> Eventually, we would add other device driver selections when
>> CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE=y. At this point, those drivers are still not ready.
>
> Could you please give me some examples of drivers that would depend on
> CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE? I like the current way things work without the need
> for such an option, where everything's implemented purely as drivers you
> can opt in our out of.
>
> You don't have a CONFIG_ARCH_SB7XX on x86 either, right? ;)
>
>
> Alex
>

I am not saying that device drivers need to depend on 
CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE. I am thinking along the line of an easy way to 
enable SOC without having to manually select each of the required 
drivers to support the SOC. An example is the "ARCH_VEXPRESS".

Suravee


  reply	other threads:[~2014-10-28 13:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-10-24 12:20 [PATCH] arm64: amd-seattle: Adding device tree for AMD Seattle platform suravee.suthikulpanit at amd.com
2014-10-24 12:20 ` suravee.suthikulpanit
2014-10-25 23:08 ` Alexander Graf
2014-10-25 23:08   ` Alexander Graf
2014-10-26 12:43   ` Andreas Färber
2014-10-26 12:43     ` Andreas Färber
2014-10-26 14:08     ` Alexander Graf
2014-10-26 14:08       ` Alexander Graf
2014-10-27 14:29       ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2014-10-27 14:29         ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2014-10-27 23:25         ` Alexander Graf
2014-10-27 23:25           ` Alexander Graf
2014-10-28 13:07           ` Suravee Suthikulanit [this message]
2014-10-28 13:07             ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2014-10-28 14:30             ` Alexander Graf
2014-10-28 14:30               ` Alexander Graf
2014-10-30 13:33             ` Liviu Dudau
2014-10-30 13:33               ` Liviu Dudau
2014-10-26 14:09 ` Andreas Färber
2014-10-26 14:09   ` Andreas Färber
2014-10-27 14:30   ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2014-10-27 14:30     ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2014-10-27 13:50 ` Mark Rutland
2014-10-27 13:50   ` Mark Rutland
2014-10-27 18:34   ` Suravee Suthikulanit
2014-10-27 18:34     ` Suravee Suthikulanit

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=544F9525.80304@amd.com \
    --to=suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com \
    --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.