From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vladimir Murzin Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Support for Cortex-M Prototyping System Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:39:44 +0000 Message-ID: <5655C830.7020501@arm.com> References: <1448447621-17900-1-git-send-email-vladimir.murzin@arm.com> <20614077.l46PyO8gV6@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20614077.l46PyO8gV6@wuerfel> Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-lFZ/pmaqli7XmaaqVzeoHQ@public.gmane.org, gregkh-hQyY1W1yCW8ekmWlsbkhG0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org, u.kleine-koenig-bIcnvbaLZ9MEGnE8C9+IrQ@public.gmane.org, afaerber-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org, mcoquelin.stm32-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org, Mark.Rutland-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, Pawel.Moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org, ijc+devicetree-KcIKpvwj1kUDXYZnReoRVg@public.gmane.org, galak-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org, jslaby-AlSwsSmVLrQ@public.gmane.org, robh+dt-DgEjT+Ai2ygdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-serial-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org On 25/11/15 11:22, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> I'd be happy to hear any feedback/comments on this series! > Looks pretty good overall, I didn't have any specific concerns. Thanks for your time! > >> > Remain questions: >> > >> > - Application notes 399/400 have PSRAM located at address different to what >> > we have for AN385/AN386, so I'm wondering what is the best practice to handle >> > CONFIG_DRAM_BASE? Different defconfig or there is better place? > I would not want to add more than one defconfig for a relatively simple > platform. Most actual users would have to modify their config anyway, so > I think it's best to just have one config file for the most common machine > here and let users change the dram base if they have the other one. > I think the same, just wanted to check that I didn't misunderstand something. > We can also look at using the Kconfig fragments infrastructure more here. > >> > - I'm not sure about naming of dts files: Application Notes (mps2-an*) vs Cortex-M (mps2-cm*); >> > any preference? > I don't mind either way. Ok, I'll leave things as they are till anybody has different opinion on that. Cheers Vladimir > > Arnd > > > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: vladimir.murzin@arm.com (Vladimir Murzin) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:39:44 +0000 Subject: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Support for Cortex-M Prototyping System In-Reply-To: <20614077.l46PyO8gV6@wuerfel> References: <1448447621-17900-1-git-send-email-vladimir.murzin@arm.com> <20614077.l46PyO8gV6@wuerfel> Message-ID: <5655C830.7020501@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 25/11/15 11:22, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> I'd be happy to hear any feedback/comments on this series! > Looks pretty good overall, I didn't have any specific concerns. Thanks for your time! > >> > Remain questions: >> > >> > - Application notes 399/400 have PSRAM located at address different to what >> > we have for AN385/AN386, so I'm wondering what is the best practice to handle >> > CONFIG_DRAM_BASE? Different defconfig or there is better place? > I would not want to add more than one defconfig for a relatively simple > platform. Most actual users would have to modify their config anyway, so > I think it's best to just have one config file for the most common machine > here and let users change the dram base if they have the other one. > I think the same, just wanted to check that I didn't misunderstand something. > We can also look at using the Kconfig fragments infrastructure more here. > >> > - I'm not sure about naming of dts files: Application Notes (mps2-an*) vs Cortex-M (mps2-cm*); >> > any preference? > I don't mind either way. Ok, I'll leave things as they are till anybody has different opinion on that. Cheers Vladimir > > Arnd > > > From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754869AbbKYOkA (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:40:00 -0500 Received: from eu-smtp-delivery-143.mimecast.com ([146.101.78.143]:54319 "EHLO eu-smtp-delivery-143.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751730AbbKYOj6 convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:39:58 -0500 Message-ID: <5655C830.7020501@arm.com> Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 14:39:44 +0000 From: Vladimir Murzin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnd Bergmann CC: linux@arm.linux.org.uk, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, tglx@linutronix.de, u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, afaerber@suse.de, mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com, Mark.Rutland@arm.com, Pawel.Moll@arm.com, ijc+devicetree@hellion.org.uk, galak@codeaurora.org, jslaby@suse.cz, robh+dt@kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Support for Cortex-M Prototyping System References: <1448447621-17900-1-git-send-email-vladimir.murzin@arm.com> <20614077.l46PyO8gV6@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <20614077.l46PyO8gV6@wuerfel> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Nov 2015 14:39:54.0337 (UTC) FILETIME=[26180510:01D1278F] X-MC-Unique: cKMhc1AUQXyn9JzNjrIkSA-1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 25/11/15 11:22, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> I'd be happy to hear any feedback/comments on this series! > Looks pretty good overall, I didn't have any specific concerns. Thanks for your time! > >> > Remain questions: >> > >> > - Application notes 399/400 have PSRAM located at address different to what >> > we have for AN385/AN386, so I'm wondering what is the best practice to handle >> > CONFIG_DRAM_BASE? Different defconfig or there is better place? > I would not want to add more than one defconfig for a relatively simple > platform. Most actual users would have to modify their config anyway, so > I think it's best to just have one config file for the most common machine > here and let users change the dram base if they have the other one. > I think the same, just wanted to check that I didn't misunderstand something. > We can also look at using the Kconfig fragments infrastructure more here. > >> > - I'm not sure about naming of dts files: Application Notes (mps2-an*) vs Cortex-M (mps2-cm*); >> > any preference? > I don't mind either way. Ok, I'll leave things as they are till anybody has different opinion on that. Cheers Vladimir > > Arnd > > >