From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robert.jarzmik@free.fr (Robert Jarzmik) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 23:26:47 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 0/4] ARM64: Initial Marvell IAP140 enablement In-Reply-To: ("Andreas \=\?utf-8\?Q\?F\=C3\=A4rber\=22's\?\= message of "Tue, 21 Feb 2017 19:26:40 +0100") References: <20170219032000.4674-1-afaerber@suse.de> <87bmtxatmt.fsf@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <8737f7yyc8.fsf@belgarion.home> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Andreas F?rber writes: > Hi Gregory, > > Am 20.02.2017 um 14:17 schrieb Gregory CLEMENT: >> On dim., f?vr. 19 2017, Andreas F?rber wrote: >> >>> This mini-series adds initial support for the Marvell IAP140 SoC (aka PXA1908) >>> and the Andromeda Box Edge development board. >> >> Given the name of the SoC (PXA1908) and the fact that you reuse driver >> related to PXA, for me these SoC is neither a mvebu nor a berlin SoC. > > That matches my understanding. ...zip... > What I am reading out of the documentation Thomas pointed to is that > ARCH_MMP would be more correct than ARCH_PXA, despite the PXA1908 name. I agree here. PXA for me are XScale micro-architecture based SoCs, quite old. PXA1908 has a quite recent Cortex-A53 (or several of them), which makes me think its either an MMP or something newer than MMP. > MMP does help with driver compilation. Just for the OF earlycon I still > need the PXA compatible fallback, or we would need to define an MMP > earlycon. Since mmp2.dtsi does not use the pxa compatible, I'll look > into the latter for v2. > > MMP sorts before MVEBU, unlike PXA. > > So MMP would mean Eric and Haojian only - I will drop the other Marvell > maintainers for v2 then, except where review comments have been provided. Yes please. Cheers. -- Robert