Re: [PATCH-V5 2/3] arm:omap:am33xx: Add AM335XEVM machine support

[Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>]

"Hiremath, Vaibhav" <hvaibhav@ti.com> writes:

> On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 21:27:18, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> * Hiremath, Vaibhav <hvaibhav@ti.com> [120502 02:37]:
>> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 14:53:24, Paul Walmsley wrote:
>> > > Hi
>> > > 
>> > > On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, hvaibhav@ti.com wrote:
>> > > 
>> > > > From: Afzal Mohammed <afzal@ti.com>
>> > > > 
>> > > > This patch adds minimal support for AM335X EVM.
>> > > > The approach taken here is to add AM335X EVM support
>> > > > to AM3517EVM, considering the fact that with device tree
>> > > > developement we will get rid of board-*.c.
>> > > > 
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Afzal Mohammed <afzal@ti.com>
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@ti.com>
>> > > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>
>> > > 
>> > > I realize people may not necessarily like this, but I think that the 
>> > > AM33xx EVM needs its own board file.  This is because it really has 
>> > > nothing to do with the AM3517EVM.  Also, the AM3517EVM depends on 
>> > > CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3, but the AM33xx EVM should not: it should depend on 
>> > > either CONFIG_ARCH_OMAPAM33XX, or CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4.
>> 
>> I guess adding CONFIG_SOC_AM33XX makes sense if it does not share anything
>> except core with omap3. And the SOC is independent of the core selected,
>> there is no dependency between SoC and the core.
>> 
>> Note that we have CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS, all the other ones should be just
>> CONFIG_SOC_XXX. As all omap3 omap4 and am33xx are v7, there's no need to
>> compile with different flags either.
>>  
>
> What about cpu_is_omap34xx() true for am33xx? Should we follow it?

Please, no.

I've already demonstrated that that is not necessary and only leads to
confusion and maintenance headaches.

Kevin