[PATCH-V5 2/3] arm:omap:am33xx: Add AM335XEVM machine support

[Hiremath, Vaibhav]

On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 21:27:18, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> * Hiremath, Vaibhav <hvaibhav at ti.com> [120502 02:37]:
> > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 14:53:24, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, hvaibhav at ti.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > From: Afzal Mohammed <afzal at ti.com>
> > > > 
> > > > This patch adds minimal support for AM335X EVM.
> > > > The approach taken here is to add AM335X EVM support
> > > > to AM3517EVM, considering the fact that with device tree
> > > > developement we will get rid of board-*.c.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Afzal Mohammed <afzal at ti.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav at ti.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Kevin Hilman <khilman at ti.com>
> > > 
> > > I realize people may not necessarily like this, but I think that the 
> > > AM33xx EVM needs its own board file.  This is because it really has 
> > > nothing to do with the AM3517EVM.  Also, the AM3517EVM depends on 
> > > CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP3, but the AM33xx EVM should not: it should depend on 
> > > either CONFIG_ARCH_OMAPAM33XX, or CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4.
> 
> I guess adding CONFIG_SOC_AM33XX makes sense if it does not share anything
> except core with omap3. And the SOC is independent of the core selected,
> there is no dependency between SoC and the core.
> 
> Note that we have CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS, all the other ones should be just
> CONFIG_SOC_XXX. As all omap3 omap4 and am33xx are v7, there's no need to
> compile with different flags either.
>  

What about cpu_is_omap34xx() true for am33xx? Should we follow it?


Thanks,
Vaibhav