From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: cavokz@gmail.com (Domenico Andreoli) Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2013 16:15:59 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: Broadcom: Unconditionally build arch/arm/mach-bcm In-Reply-To: References: <20130726145639.116237136@gmail.com> <20130726151223.045835540@gmail.com> <20130726152918.GL29916@titan.lakedaemon.net> <20130726215859.GA19469@glitch> Message-ID: <20130801141559.GA1904@glitch> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 10:23:48AM +0100, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Hello, > > 2013/7/26 Domenico Andreoli : > > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:29:18AM -0400, Jason Cooper wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 04:56:40PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote: > >> > From: Domenico Andreoli > >> > > >> > arch/arm/mach-bcm contains a plurality of Broadcom SoCs, each configured > >> > separately. As a matter of flexibility and maintenance, it needs to be > >> > always included in the build. > >> > >> So if I'm building mach-kirkwood, I _have_ to build Broadcom? What is > >> the *specific* problem you're encountering that this solves? > > > > In mach-bcm we (or I, it's not very clear to me) want to have support for > > multiple SoCs. > > > > In trying the approach > > > > machine-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM) += bcm > > machine-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM4760) += bcm > > > > I got linker complains about multiple symbol definitiion in case both the > > config options are selected. > > > > The first thought was to use a common option which purpose was only to > > include the subdir but then, given my allergy to the tons of config options > > with usually not straghtforward purpose, I opted for something more simple. > > I do not understand why are you trying so hard to put your SoC support > in mach-bcm. I was one of the only people to complain that mach-bcm > was both confusing and not generic enough to cover all Broadcom SoCs. > I still think it should have been specified to mach-bcmmobile or > something like mach-bcm28xxx. Back in the days where ARM drivers were > mostly living in arch/arm/*, it *might* have made some sense but now, > I really think that you should go with your own mach-bcm470x > directory. > > BCM47060, BCM53xx and BCM28xx all have both different CPU backends and > different on-chip peripherals, which are even connected differently, > put clearly, they share very little but the ARM architecture. I've already explained my point elsewhere in this thread. It's not technical, it's social. I don't see any technical disproportion to go either way. thanks, Domenico