Hi,
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 03:27:13PM +0200, Carlo Caione wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 04:21:15PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > Hi Carlo,
>
> Hi Maxime,
> thank you for reviewing also these patches, I'll keep you in CC for the
> next revisions if you are interested.
Yep, sure.
> > > +static const char * const m6_common_board_compat[] = {
> > > + "amlogic,8726_mx",
> > > + "amlogic,8726_mxs",
> > > + "amlogic,8726_mxl",
> > > + "amlogic,meson6",
> >
> > Why are all those compatibles needed? Usually, you add a single one
> > per SoC (which would be the last in your case I guess.
>
> They are taken from the weird DTS in the original Amlogic sources but I
> guess you are right. I am actually more inclined to just leave "8726_mx"
> and "meson6" since online you can find equally both the versions for
> exactly the same SoCs.
I don't really know what's the best option here, but you should really
choose one name and stick to it. Since the mach directory is called
meson, I guess meson6 would make more sense, but it's your call.
> > > + NULL,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > +DT_MACHINE_START(AML8726_MX, "Amlogic Meson6 platform")
> > > + .init_machine = meson_init_machine_devicetree,
> >
> > And since you don't need the init machine, you can just use the
> > generic machine support. I'm not sure what's been decided on this,
> > should we remove such empty machines?
>
> I can get rid of the .init_machine but what about the .dt_compat field?
Technically, it would work. The only drawbacks are that you don't get
the machine name in /proc/cpuinfo, and that you'll probably have to
add this file at some point in the future anyway.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
