From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com (Sebastian Hesselbarth)
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 18:31:46 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 21/21] ARM: Kirkwood: Remove DT support
In-Reply-To: <20140207151522.GZ8533@titan.lakedaemon.net>
References: <1391730137-14814-1-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch>
 <1391730137-14814-22-git-send-email-andrew@lunn.ch>
 <20140207093313.1a979a8f@skate> <20140207150306.GX8533@titan.lakedaemon.net>
 <20140207160954.69fbca38@skate> <20140207151522.GZ8533@titan.lakedaemon.net>
Message-ID: <52F51882.8000008@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 02/07/2014 04:15 PM, Jason Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 04:09:54PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Feb 2014 10:03:06 -0500, Jason Cooper wrote:
>>> If we want something leaner than multi_v7, how about
>>> armada_370-xp_defconfig to replace the current mvebu_defconfig?
>>
>> Doesn't work for me: we're going to introduce soon the support for
>> other mvebu ARMv7 SoC that are not Armada 370 nor XP, but that should
>> be built as part of this.
>>
>> Why not mvebu_v7 and mvebu_v5 as I suggested? mvebu_v7 would build both
>> Dove and Armada 370/XP (and the other ones we are going to introduce
>> soon), mvebu_v5 would build Kirkwood (and possibly Orion5x once I find
>> enough time to work on this platform).
>
> Yeah, I can go with that, as long as Sebastian doesn't see a need for a
> separate dove_defconfig in the long term (DT only).  Sebastian?

Nope, I have no plans to keep a special dove_defconfig for Dove in
mach-mvebu.

>> This way, ultimately we can simply remove kirkwood_defconfig and
>> dove_defconfig, as soon as all legacy platforms have been either
>> converted to DT, or removed.
>
> Yep, the fewer builds I have to do per patch submission, the better.

Sounds good to me.

Sebastian