From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: haojian.zhuang@gmail.com (Haojian Zhuang) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 11:32:14 +0800 Subject: [PATCH 17/26] ARM: pxa: pxa95x is incompatible with earlier pxa In-Reply-To: References: <1317499438-14058-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <1317499438-14058-18-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Eric Miao wrote: > On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Haojian Zhuang > wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 4:03 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> We cannot support ARMv5 and ARMv7 based boards in a single kernel, >>> so introduce a new option in mach-pxa to select between the two. >>> >>> The PJ4 (ARMv7) based boards are now only visible when >>> CONFIG_ARCH_PXA_V7 is set, the other boards are only visible >>> when it's not set. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann >>> --- >>> ?arch/arm/mach-pxa/Kconfig | ? 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------- >>> ?1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/Kconfig >>> index cd19309..bb310d0 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-pxa/Kconfig >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-pxa/Kconfig >>> @@ -2,6 +2,27 @@ if ARCH_PXA >>> >>> ?menu "Intel PXA2xx/PXA3xx Implementations" >>> >>> +config ARCH_PXA_V7 >>> + ? ? ? bool "ARMv7 (PXA95x) based systems" >>> + >>> +if ARCH_PXA_V7 >>> +comment "Marvell Dev Platforms (sorted by hardware release time)" >>> +config MACH_TAVOREVB3 >>> + ? ? ? bool "PXA95x Development Platform (aka TavorEVB III)" >>> + ? ? ? select CPU_PXA955rds and V7 boards being built together yet it's not supported (there will be building errors). And this could be easily spotted with auto/rds and V7 boards being built together yet it's not supported (there will be building errors). And this could be easily spotted with auto/ >>> + >>> +config MACH_SAARB >>> + ? ? ? bool "PXA955 Handheld Platform (aka SAARB)" >>> + ? ? ? select CPU_PXA955 >>> +endif >>> + >>> +config PXA_V7_MACH_AUTO >>> + ? ? ? def_bool y >>> + ? ? ? depends on ARCH_PXA_V7 >>> + ? ? ? depends on !MACH_SAARB >>> + ? ? ? select MACH_TAVOREVB3 >>> + >> Could we avoid to use PXA_V7_MACH_AUTO? I think the better way is >> defining a new ARCH (ARCH_PXA95X or something else), and sharing the >> code in arch/arm/mach-pxa. I think that it's easy to implement. >> >> How about you, Russell & Eric? > > Haojian, > > The patch here is to fix the issue of V5 boards and V7 boards being > built together yet it's not supported (there will be building errors). > And this could be easily spotted with auto/random configurations. > > I generally think the patch is fine before we'll allow building of both > v5 and v7 code together (which Nico will be definitely interested in) > > Eric, At first, a new macro (ARCH_PXA_V7) is defined in arch/arm/mach-pxa/Kconfig in this patch. I prefer to move this macro to arch/arm/Kconfig. Secondly, pxa95x is both used in saarb and tavorevb3. Thirdly, PXA_V7_MACH_AUTO is unnecessary. We just need to select those machines in defconfig or define a new DT machine type to select all machines. Thanks Haojian