On Monday 23 March 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > ... removed people not concerned by pxa story ... > > >> As for XIP support, I don't have a clear view if it's a requirement for > >> multiplatform nor if it works in these builds. > > > > It would be nice to not have to support both options: if we put pxa into > > ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM, I'd like to remove the existing entry from the choice > > statement at the same time. > Ah I wasn't aware of that ... that will deserve some thought from me ... It's not 100% required, but it's what we ended up doing on all other platforms. > >> > I think all of them are theoretically doable, but I wasn't expecting > >> > to ever get there. > >> Well, that makes me a goal to reach, doesn't it ? I'll stick to optimism here, > >> and we'll see within a year how far I manage to go :) > > > > Fair enough. Any work you do on this is highly appreciated anyway, > > regardless of whether you complete it or not. BTW, one thought I had > > a while ago was that we can move support for any PXA machines that are > > DT enabled into mach-mmp, which hopefully will be fully DT-only and > > multiplatform enabled at some point, and we can keep mach-pxa for the > > legacy board files if you don't succeed in converting them all. > > Actually, this deserves another discussion alltogether. My plan was not to > convert all pxa board files to dt support, but all internal SoC IPs drivers + > mach/plat support. > > Or put another way at the end : > - there will be at least one pxa25x board which is fully DT converted > - there will be at least one pxa27x board which is fully DT converted > - there will be at least one pxa3xx board which is fully DT converted > > - there will be at least one pxa25x board which is not DT converted > - there will be at least one pxa27x board which is not DT converted > - there will be at least one pxa3xx board which is not DT converted > > I want to keep the support for both legacy platform_data and DT for pxa > architecture. The idea I had was that only fully DT converted machines will > benefit from multiplatform support. I see. On other platforms, we also have board files that are not DT but are included in multiplatform. I don't see anything wrong in general. The more important question is whether you want to keep having a single kernel capable of running on all PXA machines (DT and ATAGS), while also doing a subset of PXA that can be multiplatform with other ARMv5 targets like pxa168 (MMP) but excluding the rest of PXA. > As for mach-mmp, I don't see how this could work, as there are architecture > specific parts that will probably remain, such as the suspend to RAM code > (arch/arm/mach-pxa/sleep.S). This might be doable, even if I don't see how. Those parts could be moved to plat-pxa. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
