From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 11:52:06 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] arm64: Add Kconfig option for Samsung GH7 SoC family In-Reply-To: <2286031.FWmKXGrGIV@wuerfel> References: <1392100183-30930-1-git-send-email-kgene.kim@samsung.com> <1540B9A3-2485-4149-81DD-7D86A532E5D4@arm.com> <2286031.FWmKXGrGIV@wuerfel> Message-ID: <52F99056.6010906@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/13/14 04:14, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 12 February 2014 13:04:40 Kumar Gala wrote: >> On Feb 12, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On 12 Feb 2014, at 16:25, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>> One reason to keep around ARCH_* is for drivers shared between arm and arm64 that depend on it. >>> >>> We already converted some of them (those depending on ARCH_VEXPRESS) to >>> just depend on ARM64. Ideally, at some point I?d like to see them as >>> defaulting to modules but I don?t think we are there yet (we had some >>> discussions at the last KS, I?m not sure anyone started looking into >>> this). >> >> I?m torn about this, I think for something like VEXPRESS it makes sense, >> however I think its reasonable to still have an config symbol for a full >> SoC family or something of that nature. > > I think for SBSA compliant systems, we should be able to live with a > generic ARCH_SBSA Kconfig symbol. For more irregular embedded platforms, > we may need something more specific. > Basically, I agreed with Arnd's suggestion to use ARCH_SBSA. Or we need to define level in Kconfig like ARCH_SBSA_L1 for level1. BTW, how about compliant with SBSA Level1 and having some specific features? - Kukjin