From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@kernel.org (Kevin Hilman) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:39:55 -0800 Subject: [PATCH v9 2/2] arm-soc: Add support for tango4 platforms In-Reply-To: (=?utf-8?Q?=22M=C3=A5ns?= =?utf-8?Q?_Rullg=C3=A5rd=22's?= message of "Wed, 18 Nov 2015 18:16:47 +0000") References: <564C94A5.4060301@sigmadesigns.com> <564C9558.4020100@sigmadesigns.com> <7ha8qbyyiz.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Message-ID: <7hegfnxfjo.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org M?ns Rullg?rd writes: > Kevin Hilman writes: > >> Marc Gonzalez writes: >> >>> Add support for Sigma Designs ARM-based Tango4 "Secure Media Processor" >>> platforms (i.e. smp8734, smp8756, smp8758, smp8759) built around the >>> Cortex-A9 MPCore r3p0 (all dual-core, except the 8756). >>> >>> Support for older MIPS-based platforms can be found elsewhere: >>> https://github.com/mansr/linux-tangox >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez >>> --- >>> arch/arm/Kconfig | 2 ++ >>> arch/arm/Makefile | 1 + >>> arch/arm/mach-tangox/Kconfig | 12 ++++++++++++ >>> arch/arm/mach-tangox/Makefile | 2 ++ >>> arch/arm/mach-tangox/setup.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>> arch/arm/mach-tangox/smc.S | 9 +++++++++ >>> arch/arm/mach-tangox/smc.h | 5 +++++ >> >> Potential bike-shed fodder, but, a dumb question: is the family name >> actually "tangox" or is the "x" for the number (tango3, tango4, etc.) >> >> Assuming it's the later based on usage throughout the patch, I think >> it'd be better to just use "tango" throughout instead of tangox. > > The x indeed stands for a number. I have no idea what tango1 was or if > it ever existed. Tango2 (SMP863x) and tango3 (SMP86[457]x) were MIPS > based. Tango4 is ARM based (mostly, the SMP8910 is MIPS) but otherwise > very similar to tango3. Thanks for the clarification. > Since we don't know what tango5 will look like, > mach-tango4 might be more suitable here. If tango5 turns out to be > sufficiently similar, there's no harm from adding support for that to > the mach-tango4 code (just look at mach-omap2). Well, mach-omap2 leads to enough confusion that I don't think we need to use that as a model. ;) IMO, mach-tango is a better starting point. > Most of the drivers support both tango3 and tango4, but apparently some > changes are planned for tango5. Thanks for the clarification, Kevin