From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: slash.tmp@free.fr (Mason) Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2015 20:00:03 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] arm-soc: Add Sigma Designs Tango4 port In-Reply-To: References: <560EAA7C.3070302@free.fr> <560EB1EC.3020403@free.fr> Message-ID: <560EC623.4030300@free.fr> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/10/2015 18:55, M?ns Rullg?rd wrote: > Mason writes: > >>>> + uart0 { >>>> + compatible = "ralink,rt2880-uart"; >>>> + reg = <0x10700 0x100>; >>>> + clock-frequency = <7372800>; >>>> + reg-shift = <2>; >>>> +/* fifo-size = <16>; BROKEN */ >>> >>> Either fix whatever is broken or drop that line. >> >> I can't leave TODO reminders in the platform Kconfig [and DT files]? > > Never mind, I've sent a patch fixing the problem. That's great news. Although back-porting to 3.14 is looking more and more time-consuming. (But that's my problem.) The question of comments in Kconfig and DT files still stands. (No need to state your position again.) >>>> + intc: intc at e000 { >>>> + compatible = "sigma,tango-intc"; >>> >>> Why do you insist on using other names than the ones I've been using for >>> months? Just want to leave your own mark on the code? >> >> You're using "sigma,smp8640-intc". >> The SMP8640 is a Tango3 (MIPS-based) platform. >> It makes no sense to have references to Tango3 in tango4.dtsi >> Aside from the CPU difference, Tango3 and Tango4 have a lot in common though. > > It's commonplace to refer to peripherals by the earliest (supported) > chip using them. This avoids naming conflicts if a future chip uses a > different component. Some bits are incompatible even between different > devices in the tango3 family. I'm confused. I like the way ARM did it in smp-twd.c CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE(arm_twd_a9, "arm,cortex-a9-twd-timer", twd_local_timer_of_register); CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE(arm_twd_a5, "arm,cortex-a5-twd-timer", twd_local_timer_of_register); CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE(arm_twd_11mp, "arm,arm11mp-twd-timer", twd_local_timer_of_register); They have several definitions for the different supported platforms. They have several versions of the GIC: IRQCHIP_DECLARE(gic_400, "arm,gic-400", gic_of_init); IRQCHIP_DECLARE(arm11mp_gic, "arm,arm11mp-gic", gic_of_init); IRQCHIP_DECLARE(arm1176jzf_dc_gic, "arm,arm1176jzf-devchip-gic", gic_of_init); IRQCHIP_DECLARE(cortex_a15_gic, "arm,cortex-a15-gic", gic_of_init); IRQCHIP_DECLARE(cortex_a9_gic, "arm,cortex-a9-gic", gic_of_init); IRQCHIP_DECLARE(cortex_a7_gic, "arm,cortex-a7-gic", gic_of_init); IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_8660_qgic, "qcom,msm-8660-qgic", gic_of_init); IRQCHIP_DECLARE(msm_qgic2, "qcom,msm-qgic2", gic_of_init); IRQCHIP_DECLARE(gic_v3, "arm,gic-v3", gic_of_init); For example, I know the interrupt controller was changed for Tango5. So I was planning on using: "sigma,tango-intc" for Tango3/Tango4 "sigma,tango-intc-v2" for Tango5 Would you change your code to accommodate this nomenclature? Regards.