"Hiremath, Vaibhav" <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 21:27:18, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> Hi, >> >> * Hiremath, Vaibhav <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> [120502 02:37]: >> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 14:53:24, Paul Walmsley wrote: >> > > Hi >> > > >> > > On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, hvaibhav@xxxxxx wrote: >> > > >> > > > From: Afzal Mohammed <afzal@xxxxxx> >> > > > >> > > > This patch adds minimal support for AM335X EVM. >> > > > The approach taken here is to add AM335X EVM support >> > > > to AM3517EVM, considering the fact that with device tree >> > > > developement we will get rid of board-*.c. >> > > > >> > > > Signed-off-by: Afzal Mohammed <afzal@xxxxxx> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> >> > > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman@xxxxxx> >> > > >> > > I realize people may not necessarily like this, but I think that the >> > > AM33xx EVM needs its own board file. This is because it really has >> > > nothing to do with the AM3517EVM. Also, the AM3517EVM depends on >> > > CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3, but the AM33xx EVM should not: it should depend on >> > > either CONFIG_ARCH_OMAPAM33XX, or CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4. >> >> I guess adding CONFIG_SOC_AM33XX makes sense if it does not share anything >> except core with omap3. And the SOC is independent of the core selected, >> there is no dependency between SoC and the core. >> >> Note that we have CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS, all the other ones should be just >> CONFIG_SOC_XXX. As all omap3 omap4 and am33xx are v7, there's no need to >> compile with different flags either. >> > > What about cpu_is_omap34xx() true for am33xx? Should we follow it? Please, no. I've already demonstrated that that is not necessary and only leads to confusion and maintenance headaches. Kevin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
