From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gregory.clement@free-electrons.com (Gregory CLEMENT) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:13:40 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 03/10] arm64: add Armada 3700 architecture entry In-Reply-To: <4284367.sAeqrVzAbo@wuerfel> (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Wed, 03 Feb 2016 10:11:18 +0100") References: <1454436468-4241-1-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20160203142451.41381ff6@xhacker> <87k2mm5itx.fsf@free-electrons.com> <4284367.sAeqrVzAbo@wuerfel> Message-ID: <8737ta59nf.fsf@free-electrons.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Arnd, On mer., f?vr. 03 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 03 February 2016 08:55:22 Gregory CLEMENT wrote: >> >> >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms >> >> index 21074f674bde..7da341f7b90d 100644 >> >> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms >> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms >> >> @@ -1,5 +1,11 @@ >> >> menu "Platform selection" >> >> >> >> +config ARCH_ARMADA_3700 >> > >> > Would it be better to use ARCH_MVEBU? IMHO, there will be more ARMv8 SoCs >> > from our EBU, do we plan to add one CONFIG_ARMADA_yyzz for each SoC? >> >> Not for each SoC but for each family, yes. As we did for the other mvebu >> SoC families. >> > > We tend to use a little more general config strings for arm64 than we have > for arm32. I think just using ARCH_MVEBU is fine here, no need to list > the 3700 series separately. OK, for the arm32 mvebu SoC, the CONFIG_ARMADA_ were barely used, and CONFIG_ARCH_MVEBU is mostly use as a "depends on" and do not force anything. The only annoying point was with the irqchip, but thanks to the last series sent by Thomas irq-armada-370-xp.c won't be inconditionnaly built if CONFIG_ARCH_MVEBU is selected. So OK I will use CONFIG_ARCH_MVEBU. Thanks, Gregory > Arnd -- Gregory Clement, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com