From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim) Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 09:35:35 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: Exynos: Add generic compatible string In-Reply-To: References: <1392809645-631-1-git-send-email-sachin.kamat@linaro.org> <53075239.4010603@samsung.com> <2200834.G3JJLYQl5i@wuerfel> <53076F00.7000001@samsung.com> <53077160.5030202@samsung.com> Message-ID: <530BE557.20106@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/24/14 21:03, Sachin Kamat wrote: > On 21 February 2014 21:01, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> On 21.02.2014 16:21, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>> >>> On 21.02.2014 15:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> >>>> On Friday 21 February 2014 14:18:49 Tomasz Figa wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Now that we have a broader agreement on this, I think we can go >>>>>> ahead with the >>>>>> following steps as an initial approach: >>>>>> 1. Have a common machine file for both exynos4 and 5 files, >>>>>> mach-exynos-dt.c. >>>>>> 2. Introduce a generic compatible string "samsung,exynos". Well, I think, we need to consider to use compatible string "samsung,exynos" again because "exynos" name can be used on ARMv8 as well and I don't want to say that generic/common something is always good. So IMHO still using exynos4 and exynos5 would be better. >>>>>> 3. Append this to the compatible property list for existing boards. >>>>>> >>>>>> If this plan looks OK, I can send across patches doing this. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Looks good. I would also merge common.c with this resulting >>>>> mach-exynos-dt.c, as it would be the only user of the code there. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sounds good. While the naming is not important, I would just call the >>>> file 'exynos.c', in line with some of the other platforms we have. >>>> Both the 'mach-' and the '-dt' part of the file name are redundant. >>>> >>>> Alternatively, you could merge it all into common.c. >>> >>> >>> exynos.c sounds good to me. >> Well, let me see common.c and mach-exynos.c, one is for SoC specific stuff and the other is for Board specific so I think, keeping current file would be good, we can change the file name mach-exynos.c or board-exynos.c though. Thanks, Kukjin >> >> One minor thing. It might be a good idea to base on top of my PM >> consolidation part 2 series, to avoid merge conflicts: >> >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/299340 >> >> It should hit Kgene's tree this weekend. > > Sure. >