[PATCH 5/5] ARM: sunxi: Remove sun4i and sun7i machine definitions

[Olof Johansson]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 April 2014 17:04:36 Maxime Ripard wrote:
>>
>> -static void __init sunxi_dt_init(void)
>> -{
>> -       of_platform_populate(NULL, of_default_bus_match_table, NULL, NULL);
>> -}
>> -
>> -static const char * const sunxi_board_dt_compat[] = {
>> -       "allwinner,sun4i-a10",
>> -       "allwinner,sun5i-a10s",
>> -       "allwinner,sun5i-a13",
>> -       NULL,
>> -};
>> -
>> -DT_MACHINE_START(SUNXI_DT, "Allwinner A1X (Device Tree)")
>> -       .init_machine   = sunxi_dt_init,
>> -       .dt_compat      = sunxi_board_dt_compat,
>> -MACHINE_END
>> -
>>  static const char * const sun6i_board_dt_compat[] = {
>>         "allwinner,sun6i-a31",
>>         NULL,
>
> I'd like to hear more opinions on this. We could either rely
> on the generic code, or we could keep the entry with just
> the .dt_compat line and the name, so /proc/cpuinfo contains
> a meaningful platform name.
>
> Either approach works for me, but I think we should do this
> consistent across platforms. Olof, do you have an opinion?

In reality, today, most platforms still need some out-of-tree stuff
that usually goes into the mach directory on out of tree kernels. It
also gives a place to stick the Kconfig entries, it's been nice to
have them split out in per-platform Kconfigs instead of having them
all modify and conflict the shared one.

I know those aren't strong arguments to keep it, but given that all
other things are more or less equal, it's a good a reason as any.

But, I'm not picky either way.


-Olof