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

[Kumar Gala]

On Sep 9, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:

> 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?

In theory.

>> 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?

Agreed, probably best since we'll probably be merging different arch dts's as well at that point

>> 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.

Yeah, the mach-xxx/plat-xxx dir, and agree that it being a Linux-ism we shouldn't apply to this.

- k

-- 
Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation