On 24/01/2025 14:10, Biju Das wrote: >>>> Rather tell me why this is supposed to be different than other vendors? >>> >>> It is not different from other vendors. >>> >>> See, for eg: >>> config S3C2410_WATCHDOG >>> 557 tristate "S3C6410/S5Pv210/Exynos Watchdog" >>> 558 depends on ARCH_S3C64XX || ARCH_S5PV210 || ARCH_EXYNOS || COMPILE_TEST >> >> You see - only one ARCH_EXYNOS. >> >> That's the arch and vendor. Exynos is the entire arch for arm32 and >> arm64 consisting of all of SoCs. > > In Renesas case it is ARCH_RENESAS. So that's your dependency. Said in this thread long time ago. > >> >> S3C and S5P are entirely different, much older archs - these even could not be combined in one image >> with Exynos some time ago. >> >>> >>> >>> 575 config SA1100_WATCHDOG >>> 576 tristate "SA1100/PXA2xx watchdog" >>> 577 depends on ARCH_SA1100 || ARCH_PXA || COMPILE_TEST >>> >>> and many more. >> >> Again: only one SA1100, one PXA. Not per each PXA SoC. >> >> So these prove my point - use only your ARCH >>> >>> >>>> >>>> || ARM64 is already used solution >>> >>> If you are correct, then all should depend on either on ARM or ARM64 or RISCV etc... >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since most of IP's in RZ/V2H and RZ/G3E are identical we could >>>>> introduce a new family SoC ARCH_RZG3E_RZV2H to cover both or top level ARCH_RENESAS?? >>>> >>>> You should not write drivers per SoCs (or even two or there SoCs) and >>>> there is really no need to restrict them per each SoC. >>> >>> If I am not wrong, The watchdog subsystem uses similar approach. >>> >>>> >>>> Otherwise come with arguments to my first question: why do you need >>>> exception here from generic kernel approach? >>> >>> It is not deviating from generic kernel approach as lot of vendors are doing this way. >>> eg: >>> >>> config OMAP_WATCHDOG >>> tristate "OMAP Watchdog" >>> depends on ARCH_OMAP16XX || ARCH_OMAP2PLUS || COMPILE_TEST >> >> Anyway, that's ancient OMAP, we speak about new devices. >> >>> >>> >>> config DAVINCI_WATCHDOG >>> tristate "DaVinci watchdog" >>> depends on ARCH_DAVINCI || ARCH_KEYSTONE || COMPILE_TEST >> >> Different ARCH, not SoCs! >> >>> >>> >>> config K3_RTI_WATCHDOG >>> tristate "Texas Instruments K3 RTI watchdog" >>> depends on ARCH_K3 || COMPILE_TEST >> >> Dependency on ARCH. >> >> Do you understand the difference between ARCH and SoC (ARCH_R9A09G47 is the SoC - individual or >> family)? > > ARCH_R9A09G47 --> Is a SoC (RZ/G3E) > ARCH_R9A09G57 --> Is a SoC (RZ/V2H) > > 90%of IP between these SoCs are same. So can't this belongs to same family of SoCs(eg: ARCH_RZ_G3E_V2H family)? We do not discuss what these SoCs belong to. How does it matter if you create ARCH_RZ_ONE_TWO_THREE_SOCS? Your dependency is ARCH, so unified kernel image will be easier to create. This is not helping in unified image and Greg was talking about this *multiple times*. Best regards, Krzysztof
