From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 22:20:35 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: imx: move selection between i.MX21 and i.MX27 to CPU family choice In-Reply-To: <20110304081916.GB29521@pengutronix.de> References: <20110302112559.GC22310@pengutronix.de> <1299086585-22707-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20110303121153.GJ29521@pengutronix.de> <20110303162513.GS22310@pengutronix.de> <20110303180026.GC18351@pengutronix.de> <20110303201009.GT22310@pengutronix.de> <20110304081916.GB29521@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20110304212035.GY22310@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello, On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 09:19:16AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:10:09PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > Right, it's not sensible to do this selection, but the fact that it is > > possible makes me feel it's ugly. I thought a bit more about that I and > > another reason for not using SOC_IMXxy for Kconfig is that it might be > > natural to group i.MX50 and i.MX53 together because they share the same > > PHYS_OFFSET. So there are three possibilities: > > > > 1) group them using a symbol named SOC_IMX50_IMX53 > > 2) select both SOC_IMX50 and SOC_IMX53 independant of the machines > > enabled. > > 3) don't allow to build both SoCs into a single image without > > IMX_MULTI_ARCHITECTURE > > > > 2) is similar to my first suggestion---it might make things more > > complicated than necessary at runtime. 3) is a limitation that shouldn't > > be needed. So 1) is the best? Then I prefer to have a completly > > different naming scheme for the grouping. > > > > Does this make sense? > > Lets give it a try. How does the following look like? Note I also skipped > The explicit IMX_MULTI_ARCHITECTURE switch and depend on > ARM_PATCH_PHYS_VIRT && AUTO_ZRELADDR directly instead. > > 8<--------------------------------------- > > ARM i.MX: Allow to compile armv4 and armv5 based i.MX SoCs in a single kernel > > Signed-off-by: Sascha Hauer > --- > arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig | 109 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------- > arch/arm/plat-mxc/Kconfig | 17 +------ > 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-) I tested a bit and I noticed this patch breaks defconfigs for mx1, mx21 and mx27. To fix that you might want to squash the following in: diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/mx1_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/mx1_defconfig index b39b5ce..10134da 100644 --- a/arch/arm/configs/mx1_defconfig +++ b/arch/arm/configs/mx1_defconfig @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ CONFIG_MODULE_FORCE_UNLOAD=y CONFIG_MODVERSIONS=y # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_BSG is not set CONFIG_ARCH_MXC=y -CONFIG_ARCH_MX1=y +CONFIG_ARCH_IMX=y CONFIG_ARCH_MX1ADS=y CONFIG_MACH_SCB9328=y CONFIG_MXC_IRQ_PRIOR=y diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/mx21_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/mx21_defconfig index 411f88d..1b31b83 100644 --- a/arch/arm/configs/mx21_defconfig +++ b/arch/arm/configs/mx21_defconfig @@ -13,7 +13,8 @@ CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD=y # CONFIG_IOSCHED_DEADLINE is not set # CONFIG_IOSCHED_CFQ is not set CONFIG_ARCH_MXC=y -CONFIG_ARCH_MX2=y +CONFIG_ARCH_IMX=y +CONFIG_ARCH_IMX_ONLY_IMX21=y CONFIG_MACH_MX21ADS=y CONFIG_MXC_PWM=y CONFIG_NO_HZ=y diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/mx27_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/mx27_defconfig index 9ad4c656..a95b074 100644 --- a/arch/arm/configs/mx27_defconfig +++ b/arch/arm/configs/mx27_defconfig @@ -17,8 +17,8 @@ CONFIG_MODULE_UNLOAD=y # CONFIG_IOSCHED_DEADLINE is not set # CONFIG_IOSCHED_CFQ is not set CONFIG_ARCH_MXC=y -CONFIG_ARCH_MX2=y -CONFIG_MACH_MX27=y +CONFIG_ARCH_IMX=y +CONFIG_ARCH_IMX_ONLY_IMX27=y CONFIG_MACH_MX27ADS=y CONFIG_MACH_PCM038=y CONFIG_MACH_CPUIMX27=y Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |