From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ben.dooks@codethink.co.uk (Ben Dooks) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 10:54:53 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/8] arm: mach-armada: add source files In-Reply-To: <20120515111757.32847b91@skate> References: <1337072084-21967-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1337072084-21967-3-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <20120515091218.GB6820@lunn.ch> <20120515111757.32847b91@skate> Message-ID: <4FB227ED.9090807@codethink.co.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 15/05/12 10:17, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello Andrew, > > Thanks for the quick feedback! > > Le Tue, 15 May 2012 11:12:18 +0200, > Andrew Lunn a ?crit : > >>> +/include/ "armada.dtsi" >>> + >>> +/ { >>> + model = "Marvell Armada 370 family SoC"; >>> + compatible = "marvell,armada370", "marvell,armada"; >> >> It should be mrvl, not marvell, in all the compatibility strings. > > Ok, we will change that. > >> Also, we need to be careful with armada. kirkwood is an armada for >> example. It maybe be better to not actually use armada without >> postfix. > > Do you have a recommendation for this? We support both Armada 370 and > Armada XP, so the obvious common prefix for these two platforms is > "armada". Since kirkwood are ARMv5 and those new Armada are ARMv7, > would armadav7 be a better prefix? Then we could have armadav7-370 and > armadav7-xp? Other suggestions? You might want to talk to Marvell about that. I went with armadaxp or a shortened axp (although that might have bad connections back to the old Alphas) [snip] -- Ben Dooks http://www.codethink.co.uk/ Senior Engineer Codethink - Providing Genius