From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com (Thomas Petazzoni) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 09:20:14 +0200 Subject: [RFC PATCHv2 2/2] ARM: socfpga: Add board support for Altera's SOCFPGA Cyclone 5 HW In-Reply-To: <50049916.3080509@gmail.com> References: <1342113976-27140-1-git-send-email-dinguyen@altera.com> <1342113976-27140-3-git-send-email-dinguyen@altera.com> <50049916.3080509@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20120717092014.53392f77@skate> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Le Mon, 16 Jul 2012 17:43:34 -0500, Rob Herring a ?crit : > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-socfpga/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-socfpga/Kconfig > > new file mode 100644 > > index 0000000..133fc89 > > --- /dev/null > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-socfpga/Kconfig > > @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ > > +config MACH_SOCFPGA_CYCLONE5 > > + bool "SOCFPGA Cyclone5 platform" > > + select COMMON_CLK > > + select HAVE_SMP > > + select PLAT_SOCFPGA_ETH > > + help > > + Include support for the Altera(R) Cyclone5 development platform. > > You don't need a config option for a machine with DT. Ah, interesting, I was precisely going to send an e-mail today about this, because we currently have different cases in tree: * In mach-tegra/Kconfig, there is one Kconfig option per-board, and then mach-tegra/Makefile.boot contains lines like dtb-$(CONFIG_MACH_) += .dtb. So there is one Kconfig option per-board, and a .dtb generation per-board. * In mach-at91/Kconfig, there is only one Kconfig option to support all DT-based platforms (CONFIG_MACH_AT91SAM_DT), and mach-at91/Makefile.boot generates the .dtb files for all boards as soon as CONFIG_MACH_AT91SAM_DT is enabled. So very different strategy from mach-tegra. * In mach-mxs/Kconfig, there is only one Kconfig option to support all DT-based platforms (MACH_MXS_DT), but the mach-mxs/Makefile.boot does not have any dtb-... += line. Which approach is the correct one? My feeling would be that the mach-at91 approach is the right one, because it doesn't make sense to have one Kconfig option per board when we use the device tree. Is this correct? Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com