From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nico@fluxnic.net (Nicolas Pitre) Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 14:20:56 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PATCH] arm: Add basic support for new Marvell Armada SoC family In-Reply-To: <201205151527.01156.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1337072084-21967-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <4FB269CB.4080804@gmail.com> <20120515164438.22258885@skate> <201205151527.01156.arnd@arndb.de> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, 15 May 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 15 May 2012, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > > On the naming side, we are really open to what the community prefers. > > We knew there would be quite a bit of discussion around this, because > > there's a lot quite a few Marvell SoCs supported in various places, and > > it's not obvious what's the right place and name for a new SoC family. > > > > What about making it mach-marvell, which would contain the DT-enabled > > SoC support for Marvell SoCs? We can start with 370 and XP today, and > > gradually add future SoCs, or even port previous SoCs as they are moved > > to support the device tree. > > > > Again we're really open on the solution. Lior from Marvell can give all > > the necessary input to explain how the SoC family is organized. > > The problem with mach-marvell is that it would be confusing in the presence > of pxa/mmp which I would probably still leave out of that directory, since > they are rather different inside. > > I think we can just start with the existing plat-orion directory until > someone comes up with a better place. plat-orion for the common bits totally makes sense. I wouldn't use that for SOC specific stuff though. The proposed mach-armada is probably a good choice. mach-marvell, mach-mrvl or any other derivatives based on the company name is a really bad choice. Marvell is a large company and it has several SOC families with totally disjoint history. Nicolas