On 02/24/14 21:03, Sachin Kamat wrote:
On 21 February 2014 21:01, Tomasz Figa<t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 21.02.2014 16:21, Tomasz Figa wrote:
On 21.02.2014 15:48, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 21 February 2014 14:18:49 Tomasz Figa wrote:
Now that we have a broader agreement on this, I think we can go
ahead with the
following steps as an initial approach:
1. Have a common machine file for both exynos4 and 5 files,
mach-exynos-dt.c.
2. Introduce a generic compatible string "samsung,exynos".
Well, I think, we need to consider to use compatible string
"samsung,exynos" again because "exynos" name can be used on ARMv8 as
well and I don't want to say that generic/common something is always
good. So IMHO still using exynos4 and exynos5 would be better.
3. Append this to the compatible property list for existing boards.
If this plan looks OK, I can send across patches doing this.
Looks good. I would also merge common.c with this resulting
mach-exynos-dt.c, as it would be the only user of the code there.
Sounds good. While the naming is not important, I would just call the
file 'exynos.c', in line with some of the other platforms we have.
Both the 'mach-' and the '-dt' part of the file name are redundant.
Alternatively, you could merge it all into common.c.
exynos.c sounds good to me.
Well, let me see common.c and mach-exynos.c, one is for SoC specific
stuff and the other is for Board specific so I think, keeping current
file would be good, we can change the file name mach-exynos.c or
board-exynos.c though.
Thanks,
Kukjin
One minor thing. It might be a good idea to base on top of my PM
consolidation part 2 series, to avoid merge conflicts:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/299340
It should hit Kgene's tree this weekend.
Sure.
--
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
