Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 8 Jun 2016 10:12:19 +0100 | From | Catalin Marinas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 4/9] arm64: Add platform selection for BCM2835. |
| |
On Sat, Jun 04, 2016 at 12:55:15PM -0700, Eric Anholt wrote: > Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com> writes: > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 08:18:23AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms > >> index 7ef1d05..ea88402 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms > >> @@ -13,6 +13,19 @@ config ARCH_ALPINE > >> This enables support for the Annapurna Labs Alpine > >> Soc family. > >> > >> +config ARCH_BCM2835 > >> + bool "Broadcom BCM2835 family" > >> + select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB > >> + select CLKSRC_OF > >> + select PINCTRL > >> + select PINCTRL_BCM2835 > >> + select ARM_AMBA > >> + select ARM_TIMER_SP804 > >> + select HAVE_ARM_ARCH_TIMER > >> + help > >> + This enables support for the Broadcom BCM2837 SoC.
Even the BCM number is inconsistent here.
> >> + This SoC is used in the Raspberry Pi 3 device. > > > > I thought we would just use ARCH_BCM, or is it too generic? > > Consensus last time around seemed to be to drop adding ARCH_BCM, in > favor of patch 1 of the series.
I may have missed that discussion. My point was about consistency with existing ARCH_* definitions in the arm64 Kconfig.platforms. I can see why it's easier for you since some drivers are built based on ARCH_BCM2835. Looking at drivers/clk/bcm/Makefile, there is an inconsistent mix of CLK_BCM_* and ARCH_BCM_*. I would rather have a new CLK_BCM2835 that's selected/enabled accordingly (maybe simply depending on ARCH_BCM).
-- Catalin
| |