From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc_gonzalez@sigmadesigns.com (Marc Gonzalez) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:24:50 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v9 2/2] arm-soc: Add support for tango4 platforms In-Reply-To: <7ha8qbyyiz.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> References: <564C94A5.4060301@sigmadesigns.com> <564C9558.4020100@sigmadesigns.com> <7ha8qbyyiz.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Message-ID: <564E05E2.3060004@sigmadesigns.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Kevin Hilman wrote: > Marc Gonzalez wrote: > >> Add support for Sigma Designs ARM-based Tango4 "Secure Media Processor" >> platforms (i.e. smp8734, smp8756, smp8758, smp8759) built around the >> Cortex-A9 MPCore r3p0 (all dual-core, except the 8756). >> >> Support for older MIPS-based platforms can be found elsewhere: >> https://github.com/mansr/linux-tangox >> >> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez >> --- >> arch/arm/Kconfig | 2 ++ >> arch/arm/Makefile | 1 + >> arch/arm/mach-tangox/Kconfig | 12 ++++++++++++ >> arch/arm/mach-tangox/Makefile | 2 ++ >> arch/arm/mach-tangox/setup.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> arch/arm/mach-tangox/smc.S | 9 +++++++++ >> arch/arm/mach-tangox/smc.h | 5 +++++ > > Potential bike-shed fodder, but, a dumb question: is the family name > actually "tangox" or is the "x" for the number (tango3, tango4, etc.) > > Assuming it's the later based on usage throughout the patch, I think > it'd be better to just use "tango" throughout instead of tangox. I should just change tangox to tango everywhere? This port supports tango4. I will submit a tango5 port in 2016. Does that change anything? > Also a MAINTAINERS file entry is appropriate for this new platform > support (as scripts/checkpatch.pl should have told you.) Thanks for pointing that out. I'll send a v10. Are these the only issues in your opinion? Regards.