From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring)
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 09:27:11 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] arm: mvebu: adding SATA support: dt binding and config
 update
In-Reply-To: <508948A5.3020005@free-electrons.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>
 <508948A5.3020005@free-electrons.com>
Message-ID: <50894C3F.6040205@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 10/25/2012 09:11 AM, Gregory CLEMENT wrote:
> 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.

Okay, missed that discussion.

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

Yes, then please update both.

Rob