From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: f.fainelli@gmail.com (Florian Fainelli) Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 20:41:45 -0700 Subject: BCM2836 (Raspberry Pi 2) port In-Reply-To: <5540443C.8070604@wwwdotorg.org> References: <1429639796-2169-1-git-send-email-eric@anholt.net> <5540443C.8070604@wwwdotorg.org> Message-ID: <554052F9.5040305@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Le 04/28/15 19:38, Stephen Warren a ?crit : > On 04/21/2015 12:09 PM, Eric Anholt wrote: >> This is my first submission of a Raspberry Pi 2 port. It can be found >> at https://github.com/anholt/linux/tree/bcm2836 >> >> I'm using the 2835 interrupt controller support, without adding the >> checks for ARM local interrupts first. That means no support for IPIs >> (and thus no SMP), no PMU events, and no local timer (I'm using the >> same 2835 peripheral one). >> >> It supports a similar featureset to Pi 1 at this point. Serial and SD >> cards work. Just one CPU supported. USB (ethernet) works if you use >> U-Boot, or my mailbox series >> (https://github.com/anholt/linux/tree/bcm2836-mbox). > > Tested-by: Stephen Warren > > I applied the patches on top of korg's linux-rpi.git for-rpi-next, > resolved the io_map conflicts, and tested without U-Boot. Should we start thinking about routing bcm2835/36 changes through the same Broadcom pull request as we do for the every other SoCs within mach-bcm: 63xx, 53xx/47xx, brcmstb, cygnus at some point? I don't have any strong feelings either way, just curious if this is something remotely desireable from an arm-soc maintainer role perspective. Thanks! -- Florian