From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Suriyan Ramasami Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] Support Odroid-XU board (Exynos 5410) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 12:07:09 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1408490361-308-1-git-send-email-suriyan.r@gmail.com> <1409086912.28009.43.camel@citrix.com> <1409738581.14940.3.camel@citrix.com> <54075D27.1060002@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54075D27.1060002@linaro.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Julien Grall Cc: keir@xen.org, Ian Campbell , Tim Deegan , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Jan Beulich , ian.jackson@citrix.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Julien Grall 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