From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:25:31 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v4] ARM: AT91: add board support for Pcontrol_G20 In-Reply-To: <20101014151451.GB23434@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1286466086.4306.41.camel@aspire.localdomain> <20101008123407.GB30252@game.jcrosoft.org> <1286550644.21584.34.camel@aspire.localdomain> <1286787761.7800.11.camel@aspire.localdomain> <1286792568.7800.19.camel@aspire.localdomain> <20101013131515.GC11087@game.jcrosoft.org> <1286979531.7165.9.camel@aspire.localdomain> <4CB71813.6060601@atmel.com> <20101014151451.GB23434@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <4CBD640B.1050402@atmel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Le 14/10/2010 17:14, Russell King - ARM Linux : > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 04:47:47PM +0200, Nicolas Ferre wrote: >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/pcontrol_g20_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/pcontrol_g20_defconfig >>> new file mode 100644 > > Is it really necessary to have another platform specific defconfig rather > than grouping it together with other similar platforms? Hi Russell, Peter used the new defconfig infrastructure (which produces a reduced defconfig) and we are working on merging board code as much as we can (Cf. merging of 9g20ek and 9g20ek_2mmc). So, maybe you can take this board support and we will try to share defconfig per platform during .37 development cycle? BTW, will I have to merge this change to conform with new "debug macro infrastructure" ? --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-pcontrol-g20.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/board-pcontrol-g20.c @@ -314,8 +314,6 @@ static void __init pcontrol_g20_board_init(void) MACHINE_START(PCONTROL_G20, "PControl G20") /* Maintainer: pgsellmann at portner-elektronik.at */ - .phys_io = AT91_BASE_SYS, - .io_pg_offst = (AT91_VA_BASE_SYS >> 18) & 0xfffc, .boot_params = AT91_SDRAM_BASE + 0x100, .timer = &at91sam926x_timer, .map_io = pcontrol_g20_map_io, Best regards, -- Nicolas Ferre