Hi Vineet,
On 08/10/2017 06:07 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote:
> Hi Alexandru,
>
> On 08/11/2017 12:58 AM, Alexandru Gagniuc wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Looking under arch/arc, I see the current way is to add a
>> plat-[socname] for each new SoC. However, it seems that plat-sim, and
>> plat-tb10x are just place-holders for the compatible bindings.
>>
>> I was going to do the same for plat-anarion, which required an early
>> boot workaround. However, with Alexey's INTC patch, this workaround is
>> no longer required, so plat-anarion would become just another stub.
>>
>> I don't like the idea of adding dead code whenever a new platform
>> arrives. My thought is to merge these into a plat-generic, and add the
>> following two compatible bindings:
>> * "snps,arccompact-generic"
>> * "snps,arcv2-generic"
>> Keep the existing bindings for compatibility reasons, but require all
>> new platforms that don't need boot stubs to use one of the generic
>> .compatible bindings. Do you agree with the plan?
>
> Your proposal is reasonable but I'd still prefer the explicit
> platform/soC binding for calling out the various arc based platforms if
> nothing else !
>
> However the boilerplate code can be pretty minimal ! If the platform is
> simple enough, no need for any new Kconfig entries. I've already
> eliminated CONFIG_ARC_PLAT_SIM (look at my #for-curr in kernel.org repo
> / linux-next)
> So you just need to
> 1. create plat-xxx/{Makefile, platform.c} and a simple board
> description in latter.
> 2. And add this platform unconditionally to arch/arc/Makefile
>
> Does that work for you ?
I was hoping to avoid the addition of extra source files for zero code
gain, though your proposal does work. However, since the platform would
be added unconditionally, would it make more sense to add the
.compatible = "adaptrum,anarion"
binding to plat-nsim instead of creating new files?
Alex
> -Vineet
