Hi,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 06:08:53PM -0700, Olof Johansson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 April 2014 17:04:36 Maxime Ripard wrote:
> >>
> >> -static void __init sunxi_dt_init(void)
> >> -{
> >> - of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
> >> -}
> >> -
> >> -static const char * const sunxi_board_dt_compat[] = {
> >> - "allwinner,sun4i-a10",
> >> - "allwinner,sun5i-a10s",
> >> - "allwinner,sun5i-a13",
> >> - NULL,
> >> -};
> >> -
> >> -DT_MACHINE_START(SUNXI_DT, "Allwinner A1X (Device Tree)")
> >> - .init_machine = sunxi_dt_init,
> >> - .dt_compat = sunxi_board_dt_compat,
> >> -MACHINE_END
> >> -
> >> static const char * const sun6i_board_dt_compat[] = {
> >> "allwinner,sun6i-a31",
> >> NULL,
> >
> > I'd like to hear more opinions on this. We could either rely
> > on the generic code, or we could keep the entry with just
> > the .dt_compat line and the name, so /proc/cpuinfo contains
> > a meaningful platform name.
> >
> > Either approach works for me, but I think we should do this
> > consistent across platforms. Olof, do you have an opinion?
>
> In reality, today, most platforms still need some out-of-tree stuff
> that usually goes into the mach directory on out of tree kernels. It
> also gives a place to stick the Kconfig entries, it's been nice to
> have them split out in per-platform Kconfigs instead of having them
> all modify and conflict the shared one.
>
> I know those aren't strong arguments to keep it, but given that all
> other things are more or less equal, it's a good a reason as any.
I guess the /proc/cpuinfo thing just tip the scales to keeping the
minimal machines. I'll update the patches.
Maxime
--
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
