From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Heiko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=FCbner?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] ARM: rockchip: enable support for RK3288 SoCs Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 22:22:56 +0200 Message-ID: <2681748.x2jAk95I37@diego> References: <1471578.ILeMmG2DL6@diego> <4355781.cnmcVo5AVu@diego> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Doug Anderson Cc: "linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org" , Olof Johansson , Eddie Cai , "devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Am Mittwoch, 16. Juli 2014, 12:57:21 schrieb Doug Anderson: > Heiko, >=20 > On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 4:01 PM, Heiko St=FCbner wr= ote: > > Enable HAVE_ARM_ARCH_TIMER and add a rockchip,rk3288 compatible. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: Heiko Stuebner > > --- > >=20 > > arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig | 1 + > > arch/arm/mach-rockchip/rockchip.c | 1 + > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+) > >=20 > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig > > b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig index e4564c2..d168669 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-rockchip/Kconfig > > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ config ARCH_ROCKCHIP > >=20 > > select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB > > select ARM_GIC > > select CACHE_L2X0 > >=20 > > + select HAVE_ARM_ARCH_TIMER >=20 > Do we want to think about allowing someone to enable the A9-based > Rockchip SoCs separately than the A12-based ones? I know it doesn't > hurt to have the arch timer code present on A9 SoCs (it will figure > things out at runtime), but people trying to build an A9-based system > might not want the extra code? >=20 > Anyway, I don't feel strongly about it, so: I've also thought about this previously. Personally I would want to wai= t with=20 introducing more complexity here until someone comes along with a use c= ase. Simply because we're talking about 7kb (stripped) for the arch-timer an= d=20 machines with >1GB of memory. So I'm not adverse to it, but I guess it will make more sense when more= soc- specific code lands - suspend stuff for example. But I think we should be able to drop the dw_apb_timer altogether, as i= t stems=20 from a time before I found the global-timer informations and all A9 SoC= s=20 should be able to use this one instead. >=20 > Reviewed-by: Doug Anderson > Tested-by: Doug Anderson -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" i= n the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html