Hi, Mark
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:00:10AM +0000, Chunyan Zhang wrote:
>> From: Zhizhou Zhang <zhizhou.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Adds support for Spreadtrum's SoC Platform in the arm64 Kconfig and
>> defconfig files.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhizhou Zhang <zhizhou.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Orson Zhai <orson.zhai@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Chunyan Zhang <chunyan.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 +++++
>> arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> index b1f9a20..885c1f4 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>> @@ -153,6 +153,11 @@ config ARCH_SEATTLE
>> help
>> This enables support for AMD Seattle SOC Family
>>
>> +config ARCH_SPRD
>
> This should presumably be ARCH_SHARKL64, so you can add other SoC
> families later. The other entries in here are already formatted that
> way.
>
> I wonder if we should have these of the form ARCH_${VENDOR}_${FAMILY}
> (e.g. ARCH_SPRD_SHARKL64) rather than just ARCH_${FAMILY} to save
> ourselves from name conflicts in future (and to make it easier to grep
> for a particular vendor's config options).
>
actually we've discussed this question before[1], and I think Arnd's
suggestion is suitable for our case, so I changed this to use
ARCH_SPRD instead of ARCH_SHARKL64.
[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-November/306246.html
anyway, thank you very much!
Chunyan
>> + bool "Spreadtrum SoC platform"
>
> bool "Spreadtrun Sharkl64 SoC Family"
>
>> + help
>> + Support for Spreadtrum ARM based SoCs
>
>
> Support for the Spreadtrum Sharkl64 SoC family.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
>> +
--
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
