From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com (Suravee Suthikulanit) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 08:07:49 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] arm64: amd-seattle: Adding device tree for AMD Seattle platform In-Reply-To: <544ED462.20601@suse.de> References: <1414153221-13104-1-git-send-email-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> <544C2D67.8000405@suse.de> <544CEC5B.4020104@suse.de> <544E56DB.7020305@amd.com> <544ED462.20601@suse.de> Message-ID: <544F9525.80304@amd.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/27/2014 6:25 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 27.10.14 15:29, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote: >> On 10/26/2014 9:08 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>>> This option doesn't exist in upstream kernels, does it? Why not just >>>>>>> make it dtb-y? >>>>> >>>>> CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE is being added one hunk above.:) >>> Oops:). >>> >>> I'm not convinced we need a config option just for the sake of >>> compiling a device tree though. >>> >>> >>> Alex >>> >> >> Eventually, we would add other device driver selections when >> CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE=y. At this point, those drivers are still not ready. > > Could you please give me some examples of drivers that would depend on > CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE? I like the current way things work without the need > for such an option, where everything's implemented purely as drivers you > can opt in our out of. > > You don't have a CONFIG_ARCH_SB7XX on x86 either, right? ;) > > > Alex > I am not saying that device drivers need to depend on CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE. I am thinking along the line of an easy way to enable SOC without having to manually select each of the required drivers to support the SOC. An example is the "ARCH_VEXPRESS". Suravee