On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 09:16:02PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Maxime Ripard >> <maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:48:55PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote: >> >> The Allwinner A80 is a new Cortex octo-core A7/A15 big.LITTLE SoC. >> >> While it's processor cores and interconnecting bus are new, it >> >> re-uses many peripherals found in earlier Allwinner SoCs. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@xxxxxxxx> >> >> --- >> >> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig | 5 +++++ >> >> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sunxi.c | 9 +++++++++ >> >> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+) >> >> >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig >> >> index 1aaa1e1..72f222b 100644 >> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig >> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig >> >> @@ -42,4 +42,9 @@ config MACH_SUN8I >> >> select MFD_SUN6I_PRCM >> >> select RESET_CONTROLLER >> >> >> >> +config MACH_SUN9I >> >> + bool "Allwinner A80 (sun9i) SoCs support" >> > >> > With the new naming scheme, I wonder wether it makes sense to have the >> > A80 displayed here and in the machine definition. >> >> I expect anything that falls under sun9i to be compatible, or a trimmed >> down version. But that's just me. > > Well, compatible is a rather vague notion. They will be different for > sure. Maybe not that different, but still. So what you're saying is we have a MACH_* Kconfig symbol for each SoC. As we add or test drivers, we mark them as compatible by adding that symbol to the DEPENDS part? I can live with that. >> We know that Allwinner has released the A33, which should be compatible >> with the A23, sun8i. > > Except that it would not be straight forward for an A33 user for > example that he needs to enable the A23 support. Having the SoC name in the description should be enough. But I suppose having the SoC name in the symbol is better, as it is searchable? Is this what you want? I think it's a good idea. ChenYu >> And the A83 has been announced, which looks like a trimmed down >> version of the A80. The next SoC should be arm64, and would not >> matter here. >> >> Kevin, Shuge, could you provide us with the codenames for the A33 and >> A83, and what earlier SoC they are based on? > > Even though it would be nice to know, it's not really the issue here. -- 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
