From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753113AbbLJGQl (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2015 01:16:41 -0500 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.65]:16493 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751333AbbLJGPx (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Dec 2015 01:15:53 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] ARM: hisi: enable Hi3519 soc To: Arnd Bergmann References: <1449110565-23590-1-git-send-email-xuejiancheng@huawei.com> <56663897.7040901@huawei.com> <56664878.8040805@huawei.com> <4297924.YW2IR8MmHA@wuerfel> CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , From: xuejiancheng Message-ID: <5669181A.7030105@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:13:46 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4297924.YW2IR8MmHA@wuerfel> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.67.217.211] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020205.56691826.00C1,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 8d404968a49b1028c9ea4c1df3039069 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2015/12/9 23:32, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 08 December 2015 11:03:20 xuejiancheng wrote: >>>> >>>> I think we should come up with a way to handle this in general for >>>> ARCH_HISI. It's not problem to have a couple of sub-options, but I'd >>>> rather not have one for each SoC because I'm sure that hisilicon has >>>> made dozens or possibly hundreds of ARM based SoCs that belong into >>>> a couple of families. >>> >>> Agree with you. >>> >>>> >>>> The individual selection of IP blocks is not that important, because >>>> those tend to just be generic device drivers that we can enable on >>>> any platform using the defconfig files. >>>> >>>> You said that ARCH_HI3519 and HIP04 have an identical system controller, >>>> but it's different for Hi36xx, correct? >>> >>> No. The system controller of HI3519 is also different from HIP04. Maybe I gave you >>> wrong descriptions. Sorry about that. >>> >>>> >>>> So maybe we can generalize the HIP04 option to include all chips with >>>> that system controller as they appear to share a common ancestry regardless >>>> of the target market? >>>> >>> >>> I agree that we generalize some options regardless of the product line and target market. >>> >>>> The Hi35xx family includes some rather older chips as well based on ARM9 >>>> etc, correct? Are they closely related to the new one as well, or do they >>>> just share the name? >>> >>> Yes. It's correct. They may share some IP blocks. But they may be very different >>> from the new one for the arch code. I also don't think it's a good idea to make >>> them share the same name. >> >> I will use ARCH_HISI instead of ARCH_HI3519. >> >> > > Do you mean you want to remove the other options as well? > > We should do this consistently at least within the Kconfig file. I think it is ideal if we can do that. But I won't change it in HI3519 soc patch. I will just use ARCH_HISI for HI3519 this time. > > Arnd > > . >