On 2015/12/7 17:46, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 07 December 2015 14:58:14 xuejiancheng wrote: >> On 2015/12/5 5:54, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Friday 04 December 2015 12:07:58 xuejiancheng wrote: >>>> On 2015/12/3 17:40, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>>> On Thursday 03 December 2015 10:42:45 Jiancheng Xue wrote: >>>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-hisi/Kconfig >>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-hisi/Kconfig >>>>>> @@ -12,6 +12,14 @@ if ARCH_HISI >>>>>> >>>>>> menu "Hisilicon platform type" >>>>>> >>>>>> +config ARCH_HI3519 >>>>>> + bool "Hisilicon Hi3519 Soc" if ARCH_MULTI_V7 >>>>>> + select HAVE_ARM_ARCH_TIMER >>>>>> + select ARCH_HAS_RESET_CONTROLLER >>>>>> + >>>>>> + help >>>>>> + Support for Hisilicon Hi3519 Soc >>>>>> + >>>>>> config ARCH_HI3xxx >>>>>> bool "Hisilicon Hi36xx family" if ARCH_MULTI_V7 >>>>>> select CACHE_L2X0 >>>>> >>>>> Do those need to be separate? I would just extend the Hi36xx >>>>> to cover all Hi3xxx, if nothing in the platform code really >>>>> depends on this. >>>> >>>> For HI3519, there is really no special platform code. But HI35xx and >>>> HI36xx soc families >>>> belong to different product lines in hisilicon. HI35xx family also >>>> composes of various >>>> architectures socs(single core, smp and big-little). So I think it may be >>>> clear to have >>>> separate arch definitions. >>>> >>>> Could you give me more suggestions about this? Thank you! >>> >>> For the most part, you already need to enable the device drivers for the >>> specific components on each chip, and the per-soc top-level options here >>> don't actually control the compilation of any particular code. >>> >>> This is slightly different for some of the older platforms that for historic >>> reasons need fine-grained options. You could probably just make the device >>> drivers depend on "ARCH_HISI || COMPILE_TEST" in general, but some level >>> of classification is ok, in particular when the chips are not related at >>> all. >>> >>> In this case, my impression is that while HI3519 and HI36xx are made >>> by different business units, there is still a noticeable amount of shared >>> IP in them (e.g. the "sysctrl" node that seems to be shared with some of >>> the other chips as well), so grouping them together should make sense. >> >> HI35xx and HI36xx are designed totally independently, including IP selection. >> The relation between HI35xx and HI36xx is just like the one between HI36xx >> and HIP0x. In another word, HI35xx and HI36xx are not related except they all >> belong to hisilicon. So I don't think it's proper to group them together. >> >> Is it OK if I drop ARCH_HI3519 and use ARCH_HISI directly? > > I think we should come up with a way to handle this in general for > ARCH_HISI. It's not problem to have a couple of sub-options, but I'd > rather not have one for each SoC because I'm sure that hisilicon has > made dozens or possibly hundreds of ARM based SoCs that belong into > a couple of families.
Agree with you. > > The individual selection of IP blocks is not that important, because > those tend to just be generic device drivers that we can enable on > any platform using the defconfig files. > > You said that ARCH_HI3519 and HIP04 have an identical system controller, > but it's different for Hi36xx, correct? No. The system controller of HI3519 is also different from HIP04. Maybe I gave you wrong descriptions. Sorry about that. > > So maybe we can generalize the HIP04 option to include all chips with > that system controller as they appear to share a common ancestry regardless > of the target market? > I agree that we generalize some options regardless of the product line and target market. > The Hi35xx family includes some rather older chips as well based on ARM9 > etc, correct? Are they closely related to the new one as well, or do they > just share the name? Yes. It's correct. They may share some IP blocks. But they may be very different from the new one for the arch code. I also don't think it's a good idea to make them share the same name. > > Arnd > > . > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
