[PATCH v2] Add support for generic BCM SoC chipsets

[Christian Daudt]

On 12-11-12 09:15 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 11/12/2012 10:05 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Monday 12 November 2012, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 03:00:57PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 11 November 2012, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>>> I'm following the other mobile ARM SoCs which all have a single mach-
>>>>>> directory for various families of chips (mach-tegra, mach-omap2,
>>>>>> etc...). Plus the intent is to have a single set of mach files that
>>>>>> works across bcm SoCs, so it is preferable to keep it in a single mach-bcm.
>>>>> It's quite possible to create one directory now, e.g. mach-bcm281xx, and
>>>>> then when consolidation with other mach-bcm* happens, merge all those
>>>>> directories into a single mach-bcm. I would tend to prefer (but only
>>>>> lightly) using mach-bcm281xx now and then renaming later, unless you
>>>>> plan on expanding the SoC support in the pretty near future.
>>>> I think the main question is how many files we expect to see in the
>>>> platform directories for each of bcm3528, bcm281xx and bcm476x. Right
>>>> now, my feeling is that each of them can be a single file, since most
>>>> of the stuff that has traditionally been in mach-* directories is
>>>> moving out to drivers now.
>>> I expect only DT-only stuff will be mainlined so one directory
>>> (plat-brcm?) should be ok, right?
>> Right. The usual naming is to use 'mach-*' for one platform, and 'plat-*'
>> for stuff that spreads multiple 'mach-*' directories. In this case, the
>> name I would expect is either 'mach-bcm' as Christian suggested, or
>> 'mach-brcm' if people have strong opinions in favor of that, but not
>> 'plat-brcm'.
>>
>>>> You still have to work out how you want to maintain that directory though,
>>>> either just having per-file maintainers, or having multiple people
>>>> take responsible for the entire directory.
>>> I'd like to take care of the bcm476x and related drivers unless Broadcom
>>> wants to do it.
>> Yes, of course.
>>
>>> Let me know in which directory.
>> I'll let you work that out with Stephen and Christian. I think just
>> 'mach-bcm' is sufficent, but I think the three of you should come to
>> an agreement first.
> I don't really have too strong of a preference. If the eventual intent
> is for the directory to host all ARM Broadcom SoCs, then mach-bcm seems
> reasonable.
>
Ok, sounds like sticking to mach-bcm has sufficient acks. What I was 
thinking of doing is, once mach-bcm had been introduced, to propose to 
pull in the 476x and 2835 into also, to do some consolidation. And have 
the separate files can keep separate owners - we'd just have Kconfig + 
Makefile shared most likely.
  Or not. Ultimately I don't mind keeping 2835 and 476x as separate 
mach- either. Those are v6 SoCs, and at this point I have no plans on 
working on mobile v6 SoCs, only v7 onwards. So we can also say that 
mach-bcm is for v7+ SoCs and v6 SoCs keep their existing mach- dirs for now.
  I personally have no strong preference either, just went with mach-bcm 
because, as Arnd mentioned, going forward these are going to be mostly 
empty dirs if we stick to one dir per chipset family. So unless there 
are strong objections, I'll just stick to mach-bcm for my patches, and 
if Stephen and/or Domenico want to consolidate into a single dir later, 
we can do that. If not, we can stick to these 3 dirs.

  Thanks,
    csd