[PATCH v2 3/9] ARM: hisi: enable Hi3519 soc

Arnd Bergmann
2015-12-04T21:54:07Z

On Friday 04 December 2015 12:07:58 xuejiancheng wrote:
> On 2015/12/3 17:40, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 December 2015 10:42:45 Jiancheng Xue wrote:
> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-hisi/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-hisi/Kconfig
> >> @@ -12,6 +12,14 @@ if ARCH_HISI
> >>
> >> menu "Hisilicon platform type"
> >>
> >> +config ARCH_HI3519
> >> + bool "Hisilicon Hi3519 Soc" if ARCH_MULTI_V7
> >> + select HAVE_ARM_ARCH_TIMER
> >> + select ARCH_HAS_RESET_CONTROLLER
> >> +
> >> + help
> >> + Support for Hisilicon Hi3519 Soc
> >> +
> >> config ARCH_HI3xxx
> >> bool "Hisilicon Hi36xx family" if ARCH_MULTI_V7
> >> select CACHE_L2X0
> >
> > Do those need to be separate? I would just extend the Hi36xx
> > to cover all Hi3xxx, if nothing in the platform code really
> > depends on this.
>
> For HI3519, there is really no special platform code. But HI35xx and HI36xx soc families
> belong to different product lines in hisilicon. HI35xx family also composes of various
> architectures socs(single core, smp and big-little). So I think it may be clear to have
> separate arch definitions.
>
> Could you give me more suggestions about this? Thank you!

For the most part, you already need to enable the device drivers for the
specific components on each chip, and the per-soc top-level options here
don't actually control the compilation of any particular code.

This is slightly different for some of the older platforms that for historic
reasons need fine-grained options. You could probably just make the device
drivers depend on "ARCH_HISI || COMPILE_TEST" in general, but some level
of classification is ok, in particular when the chips are not related at all.

In this case, my impression is that while HI3519 and HI36xx are made
by different business units, there is still a noticeable amount of shared
IP in them (e.g. the "sysctrl" node that seems to be shared with some of
the other chips as well), so grouping them together should make sense.

Arnd