On 7/13/22 15:05, Florian Fainelli wrote:
On 7/13/22 02:17, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
Hi Krzysztof,
On Wed, Jul 13, 2022 at 10:40 AM Krzysztof Kozlowski
<krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 13/07/2022 10:25, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 6:42 PM Florian Fainelli
<f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There are now multiple Broadcom SoCs supported so group them under
their
own menu such that the selection is visually more appealing and we can
easily add new platforms there in the future. This allows us to move
ARCH_BRCMSTB back to its siblings.
No functional changes introduced.
Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@xxxxxxxxx>
---
Note this is based on "arm64: bcmbca: add arch bcmbca machine entry"
Hi Florian,
So far, we have tried to keep the Kconfig.platforms file rather
coarse-grained,
mainly limiting it to company names and high-level families, but
avoiding
sub-menus or adding too many sub-families.
If we add per-vendor submenus, we should probably first decide how we
want to structure this across vendors. I've added maintainers and
lists to
Cc for a couple of the ones that are in a similar situation.
I can see a couple of ways we can do this:
a) keep the list of platforms as short as possible, combining related
SoC families from a single vendor wherever possible, but no
sub-menus
(same as today)
b) Always use sub-menus when there is more than one family, but
keep relatively coarse platform selection.
c) Use sub-menus and also move to a more fine-grained SoC
selection, similar to what we have on 32-bit arm.
I would not really want to go to c), but a) and b) both make sense to
me as long as do it consistently across all platforms.
Any other ideas or opinions?
Whatever we decide here, the SoC can override in drivers/soc, just like
Renesas did. I think Renesas chose option c), but made it in
drivers/soc. I would vote to have consistent policy, so if arch/arm64 is
a) or b), sub-archs should not redefine it in drivers/soc.
We did so because of the "only a single symbol in
arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms"-policy.
I was not aware of that rule.
It is a bit of a mixed situation with Broadcom SoCs but in essence, each
Kconfig entry denotes a deeply different SoC architecture at the memory
subsystem, bus, security or product space that you might not want to
enable in your kernel. There is definitively sharing of drivers between
all of the platforms and a lot of cross pollination too but usually
these are deeply different that different kernel images do make sense.
The itch that I wanted to calm was that ARCH_BRCMSTB was after the other
Broadcom platforms separated by ARCH_BERLIN. if you prefer a pair of
KConfig comments to delineate them and flatten the platform selection,
that works for me, too.
There are 2 Marvell-based platforms (Berlin and mvebu) as well as two
NXP-based platforms (MXC and S32), would it be better to also group them
under an ARCH_MARVELL and ARCH_NXP menuconfig symbol the same way this
patch does it for Broadcom-based SoCs?
--
Florian
