[PATCHv3 1/2] ARM: msm: Add support for APQ8074 Dragonboard

[Stephen Warren]

On 09/09/2013 01:48 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> 
> On Sep 9, 2013, at 2:29 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 
>> On 09/09/2013 01:17 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 9, 2013, at 12:48 PM, Rohit Vaswani wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/6/2013 2:50 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Some comments below.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 12:32:22PM -0700, Rohit Vaswani wrote:
>>>>>> This patch adds basic board support for APQ8074 Dragonboard
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MSM) += msm8660-surf.dtb \
>>>>>> -	msm8960-cdp.dtb
>>>>>> +	msm8960-cdp.dtb \
>>>>>> +	apq8074-dragonboard.dtb
>>>>> Please add boards alphabetically.
>>>> Will do.
>>>>>
>>>>>> dtb-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MVEBU) += armada-370-db.dtb \
>>>>>> 	armada-370-mirabox.dtb \
>>>>>> 	armada-370-rd.dtb \
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/apq8074-dragonboard.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/apq8074-dragonboard.dts
>>>>>> new file mode 100644
>>>>>> index 0000000..5b7b6a0
>>>>>> --- /dev/null
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/apq8074-dragonboard.dts
>>>>> arch/arm/boot/dts/ is getting really crowded. It's been working best if the SoC
>>>>> family or vendor is used as a prefix to keep things a bit more organized. In
>>>>> that spirit, prefixing these with msm-<foo> makes sense. Can you please do so?
>>>>
>>>> Sure. But the board is called an APQ8074 and we wanted to keep the naming consistent with that.
>>>
>>> If we do this we should use qcom, not msm as the prefix.  Match the device tree vendor prefix.
>>
>> Hmm. It'd be nice for the filenames to be ${soc}-${board} so that e.g.
>> U-Boot can easily calculate the DTB filename based on its soc/board
>> environment variables... Luckily in my case for Tegra, all the Tegra
>> chip names start with "Tegra", so we already sort all our DTB filenames
>> together in the directory listing:-)
> 
> u-boot's not supported on MSM platforms, so not sure what purpose this serves.

Presumably that's just because nobody has ported the code; it could be
supported couldn't it?

> we might want to just introduce vendor dirs so its arch/arm/boot/dts/{vendor}/{soc}-{board}

That seems reasonable to me, although people will complain about the
files moving again. Perhaps it's worth doing that as part of the move of
*.dts out of the kernel?

> Not sure if we want to argue about {vendor} vs {sub-arch}.

sub-arch being the mach-xxx/plat-xxx directory? If so, I think that's a
Linux-ism that shouldn't affect the DT directory layout.