From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: gregory.clement@free-electrons.com (Gregory CLEMENT)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 16:11:49 +0200
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] arm: mvebu: adding SATA support: dt binding and config
 update
In-Reply-To: <50894471.9040000@gmail.com>
References: <1351086561-13569-1-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
 <1351086561-13569-3-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com>
 <20121024160139.6dbf5e16@skate> <5087F5B9.0@free-electrons.com>
 <20121025131818.GF18811@titan.lakedaemon.net> <50894471.9040000@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <508948A5.3020005@free-electrons.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 10/25/2012 03:53 PM, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 10/25/2012 08:18 AM, Jason Cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 04:05:45PM +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>>> On 10/24/2012 04:01 PM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't you split into one commit adding the SATA definition in
>>>> the .dtsi + doing the defconfig change (the "SoC" level modifications),
>>>> and then another commit for the .dts change? I don't really care
>>>> personally, it's really up to Jason/Andrew on this.
>>>>
>>>> Another comment below, though.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:49:21 +0200, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-370-xp.dtsi b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-370-xp.dtsi
>>>>> index 94b4b9e..3f08233 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-370-xp.dtsi
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/armada-370-xp.dtsi
>>>>> @@ -69,6 +69,16 @@
>>>>>  			compatible = "marvell,armada-addr-decoding-controller";
>>>>>  			reg = <0xd0020000 0x258>;
>>>>>  		};
>>>>> +
>>>>> +		sata at d00a0000 {
>>>>> +                        compatible = "marvell,orion-sata";
>>>>> +                        reg = <0xd00a0000 0x2400>;
>>>>> +                        interrupts = <55>;
>>>>> +                        nr-ports = <2>;
>>>>> +			clocks = <&coreclk 0>;//,  <&coreclk 0>;
>>>>
>>>> Alignment problem + remainings of tests or something like that.
>>>
>>> True I missed this one.
>>>
>>> Jason, Andrew, do you want I split this patch as suggested by Thomas or
>>> are you fine with having one single patch?
>>
>> Yes, please make the defconfig changes a separate patch.  Also, please
>> make sure only the minimum is enabled (eq RAID... isn't needed).
> 
> What about updating multi_v7_defconfig instead?

About the _instead_, when I proposed to removed mvebu_defconfig Thomas
argued that it was more convenient to build a mvebu-only kernel when
doing kernel development, and Andrew also pointed that this defconfig
should be useful for kisskb.

And about updated both mvebu_defconfig and multi_v7_defconfig, I'm
fine with it.

Gregory