RE: [PATCH 5/6] ARM: EXYNOS: Enable multi-platform build support

[Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>]

Olof Johansson wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > On Tuesday 13 May 2014 13:37:33 Kukjin Kim wrote:
> >> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Tuesday 22 April 2014, Olof Johansson wrote:
> >> > > I don't think there's a point in keeping this around. A
> >> > > "single-platform" config is just enabling a single platform in the
> >> > > config, it's not a specific option. I don't think any of the other
> >> > > platforms use anything like this today.
> >> >
> >> > The only one doing that is shmobile, but only because they have
> >> > some SoCs that are multiplatform capable and some that are not.
> >> > This isn't the case for Exynos, so it should no longer be needed.
> >> >
> >> > When I originally created this patch 18 months ago, there were a
> >> > number of drivers that broke when multiplatform got enabled.
> >> > Now the cpufreq driver is the only one left, but it seems that
> >> > it will make it for 3.16, and I wouldn't wait for it if it doesn't.
> >> > Let's just do multiplatform-only.
> >> >
> >> In my position in S.LSI, I'd like to keep the current ARCH_EXYNOS4 and
> >> EXYNOS5 because IMHO selecting each series would be helpful on real product,
> >> multiplatform is available though. Additionally EXYNOS3 is being added.
> >>
> >> It's true we can support exynos-multiplatform even though above options are
> >> included...
> >
> > I think we are talking about different questions here:
> >
Thanks for your clarification.

> > What Olof and I mean is we don't want to have an ARCH_EXYNOS_SINGLE option
> > that is there for building EXYNOS but not allowing any other SoC.
> 
Yes and agreed ;-)

> Yes. i.e. the only way forward is multiplatform _only_. _BUT_ you can
> choose to disable all other platforms in a kernel, and thus turn it
> into a single-platform build. That's fine. What we don't want is added
> logic like the EXYNOS_SINGLE Kconfig was, just to do that.
> 
Sure.

> > What I think you mean is that you want the individual EXYNOS versions
> > to be separate Kconfig options, so you can build a kernel that supports
> > EXYNOS4 but not EXYNOS5 if you want to. This is totally fine as far
> > as I'm concerned, and it's not directly related to the first point.
> 
OK, thanks :-)

> I'm also OK with that, but please don't make it more granular than per
> family if you can avoid it.
> 
Sure.

> > Note that if you enable LPAE, you will still only be able to build EXYNOS5
> > after the patch, but then you can have it in the same kernel as e.g.
> > Tegra4 and Snapdragon 600.
> 
> Yep, and that's as expected.
> 
OK.

Thanks,
Kukjin