Hi Kukjin,
On Monday 26 of August 2013 09:52:47 Kukjin Kim wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have a plan to remove supporting following SoCs in mainline in the
> near future.
> - s5pc100 - smdkc100
We already have this almost moved to device tree. A common clock framework
and pin control drivers should be posted soon. Supporting this platform
should be reasonably easy, as it has a lot in common with other SoCs like
S3C64xx and S5PV210.
> - s5pv210(s5c110) - aquial, goni, smdkc110, smdkv210, torbreck
We already have support for device tree for this in our internal tree.
Some RFC patches have been already posted by Mateusz Krawczuk. We intend
to mostly support Aquila and Goni as they are the platforms we are still
using for our work.
I also have plans to add support for FriendlyARM's {Mini,Tiny}210 board
series, which would just translate to adding appropriate board dts files.
It's also worth noting that S5PV210 (FriendlyARM's board specifically) is
being supported by Pengutronix in their Barebox bootloader [1][2].
I'd be all for completely dropping legacy board files of this platform and
others mentioned in this thread, though.
> - s5p64x0(s5p6440, s5p6450)- smdk6440, smdk6450
I haven't seen any hardware on this platform myself. As Marek said, we
don't have any boards to test mainline support on it and I'm not aware of
any interested users. This is probably the primary candidate to be
dropped.
My personal addition to the above list would be:
- unused boards based on s3c64xx
I'm yet to investigate which ones are virtually dead today. The active
ones that I would want to be kept are Cragganmore, Mini6410 and both SMDK
boards. They are going to be moved to DT, though. AFAIK mach-ncp could be
safely dropped, as from what I know, it isn't used anymore.
> I think users don't seem to use that any more with mainline. If so, we
> are able to consider, it is not right now though.
>
> How do you think?
Well, if we could drop legacy board file support for them and keep them as
DT only, support for them could be reasonably simple. Basically the code
in arch/arm would be limited to a single .c file per SoC (e.g. mach-
s5pv210-dt.c), a bunch of SoC-level .dtsi files and a bunch of board dts
files.
IMHO the best thing we could do would be creating a single mach-samsung,
where all the DT-only platforms could be located, including Exynos after
some remaining consolidation.
Best regards,
Tomasz
[1]
http://barebox.org/index.html
[2]
http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=barebox.git;a=tree;f=arch/arm/boards/friendlyarm-tiny210;h=ee3306d5e6770b8e6568fb58e9e1824cfe59fbce;hb=HEAD
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
