From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: eric.y.miao@gmail.com (Eric Miao) Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2010 07:16:53 -0800 Subject: [PATCHv2 04/11] mxc: changes to common plat-mxc code to add support for i.MX5 In-Reply-To: <20100203133840.GD5252@k2> References: <0511204199ab83aed2340e70a4639500c0528dab.1265173480.git.amit.kucheria@canonical.com> <9fa7a3c70c46a1f776c6520051481cff6525ef02.1265173480.git.amit.kucheria@canonical.com> <20100203094959.GN6130@pengutronix.de> <20100203133840.GD5252@k2> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:38 AM, Amit Kucheria wrote: > On 10 Feb 03, Sascha Hauer wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 10:43:33PM -0800, Eric Miao wrote: >> > >> > Mmm.... this should be something that we really need to get rid of, it just >> > makes a single kernel for both TZIC and AVIC together impossible, if that's >> > so designed by HW, I'm thinking about keeping this into plat-mxc/ is a good >> > way to go ... >> > >> > Sascha, you have any better idea? Provided the other file debug-macro.S in >> > the same directory already seems to break the support for multiple arches? >> > >> >> I have the following patch which I'm not sure I like better. It can >> support both irq controller types and does not add overhead if only one >> of them is compiled in. It might need some refactoring to fit into Amits >> patch stack. > > Is co-existence of TZIC and AVIC a blocker to merging i.MX5 code? I've > already made changes so that i.MX5 doesn't explode if AVIC is compiled in. > > Admittedly the assembly is a bit hard to rid, but we can fix in another set > of patches geared towards unification of an i.MX kernel. IMHO, making these > changes along with introducing a new SoC will make things a bit hard to > follow/merge. > I personally don't feel that's a hard requirement, as long as it can be fixed.