Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] Support Odroid-XU board (Exynos 5410)

[Suriyan Ramasami <suriyan.r@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Julien Grall <julien.grall@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hello Suriyan,
>
>
> On 03/09/14 13:55, Suriyan Ramasami wrote:
>>
>> On the same train of thought, it would seem that EXYNOS5_MCT_BASE
>> should also be extracted from the DT (in function exynos5_init_time).
>
>
> Sounds a good things to modify.
>
Hello Julien,
  Thanks for the feedback. I shall modify it accordingly.

>
>> Also, I realized that the PLATFORM_START for the exynos5410 is thus:
>> PLATFORM_START(exynos5, "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5")
>> I believe it should instead be:
>> PLATFORM_START(exynos5410, "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5410")
>
>
> It looks like the platform you've introduced doesn't contain exyno5410
> specific code. Why would you rename to exynos5410?
>
The .compatible is exynos5410_dt_compat which lists
"samsung,exynos5410". Hence, I wanted to make the whole PLATFORM
platform specific to the exynos5410.
Now, rethinking what you have said, I believe as all of this is
generic code, the  .compatible should then be exynos5_dt_compat, thus:
PLATFORM_START(exynos5, "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5")
    .compatible = exynos5_dt_compat,
and not, .compatible = exynos5410_dt_compat as it is now.

I believe this is what you were suggesting? In which case when more
SoCs are added, we just add the corresponding string in
exynos5_dt_compat. Would that be the correct interpretation?

Hence, if a SoC needs something platform specific, we then add a new
PLATFORM_START for that particular SoC.

I hope I am following you guys correctly here!
Thanks as always
- Suriyan



> Regards,
>
> --
> Julien Grall