On 12/19/2017 04:26 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Ludovic BARRE <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx> wrote:
On 12/18/2017 09:24 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 4:17 PM, Ludovic Barre <ludovic.Barre@xxxxxx>
wrote:
From: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx>
This patch prepares the STM32 machine for the integration of Cortex-A
based microprocessor (MPU), on top of the existing Cortex-M
microcontroller family (MCU). Since both MCUs and MPUs are sharing
common hardware blocks we can keep using ARCH_STM32 flag for most of
them. If a hardware block is specific to one family we can use either
ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M or ARCH_MULTI_V7 flag.
Signed-off-by: Ludovic Barre <ludovic.barre@xxxxxx>
Looks good overall. Two more small comments:
+if ARCH_STM32
+
config MACH_STM32F429
- bool "STMicrolectronics STM32F429"
- depends on ARCH_STM32
+ bool "STMicroelectronics STM32F429"
+ depends on ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M
default y
Instead of the explicit dependency for each board, I'd leave the
surrounding
'if ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M'. I think you had in v1.
As you suggest, I follow mach-at91 example.
The point is on "depends on ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M" ?
You prefer this way:
config MACH_STM32F429
bool "STMicroelectronics STM32F429" if ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M
default y
No, that would be wrong, that way you would always enable
MACH_STM32F429 when ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M is turned
off, which is exactly the wrong way round. What I meant is
if ARCH_STM32
if ARM_SINGLE_ARMV7M
config MACH_STM32F429
bool "STMicrolectronics STM32F429"
config MACH_STM32...
...
endif # ARMv7-M
if ARCH_MULTI_V7
config MACH_STM32...
...
endif # ARMv7-A
endif # STM32
Arnd
Ok, it's clear :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
