[PATCH 5/6] ARM: EXYNOS: Enable multi-platform build support

Olof Johansson olof at lixom.net
Tue May 13 11:01:23 PDT 2014

On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 May 2014 13:37:33 Kukjin Kim wrote:
>> Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tuesday 22 April 2014, Olof Johansson wrote:
>> > > I don't think there's a point in keeping this around. A
>> > > "single-platform" config is just enabling a single platform in the
>> > > config, it's not a specific option. I don't think any of the other
>> > > platforms use anything like this today.
>> >
>> > The only one doing that is shmobile, but only because they have
>> > some SoCs that are multiplatform capable and some that are not.
>> > This isn't the case for Exynos, so it should no longer be needed.
>> >
>> > When I originally created this patch 18 months ago, there were a
>> > number of drivers that broke when multiplatform got enabled.
>> > Now the cpufreq driver is the only one left, but it seems that
>> > it will make it for 3.16, and I wouldn't wait for it if it doesn't.
>> > Let's just do multiplatform-only.
>> >
>> In my position in S.LSI, I'd like to keep the current ARCH_EXYNOS4 and
>> EXYNOS5 because IMHO selecting each series would be helpful on real product,
>> multiplatform is available though. Additionally EXYNOS3 is being added.
>> It's true we can support exynos-multiplatform even though above options are
>> included...
> I think we are talking about different questions here:
> What Olof and I mean is we don't want to have an ARCH_EXYNOS_SINGLE option
> that is there for building EXYNOS but not allowing any other SoC.

Yes. i.e. the only way forward is multiplatform _only_. _BUT_ you can
choose to disable all other platforms in a kernel, and thus turn it
into a single-platform build. That's fine. What we don't want is added
logic like the EXYNOS_SINGLE Kconfig was, just to do that.

> What I think you mean is that you want the individual EXYNOS versions
> to be separate Kconfig options, so you can build a kernel that supports
> EXYNOS4 but not EXYNOS5 if you want to. This is totally fine as far
> as I'm concerned, and it's not directly related to the first point.

I'm also OK with that, but please don't make it more granular than per
family if you can avoid it.

> Note that if you enable LPAE, you will still only be able to build EXYNOS5
> after the patch, but then you can have it in the same kernel as e.g.
> Tegra4 and Snapdragon 600.

Yep, and that's as expected.


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list