[PATCH v2 1/7] ARM: sunxi: Introduce Allwinner A80 support

[Chen-Yu Tsai]

On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 09:16:02PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:25 PM, Maxime Ripard
>> <maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:48:55PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
>> >> The Allwinner A80 is a new Cortex octo-core A7/A15 big.LITTLE SoC.
>> >> While it's processor cores and interconnecting bus are new, it
>> >> re-uses many peripherals found in earlier Allwinner SoCs.
>> >>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <wens at csie.org>
>> >> ---
>> >>  arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig | 5 +++++
>> >>  arch/arm/mach-sunxi/sunxi.c | 9 +++++++++
>> >>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig
>> >> index 1aaa1e1..72f222b 100644
>> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig
>> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/Kconfig
>> >> @@ -42,4 +42,9 @@ config MACH_SUN8I
>> >>       select MFD_SUN6I_PRCM
>> >>       select RESET_CONTROLLER
>> >>
>> >> +config MACH_SUN9I
>> >> +     bool "Allwinner A80 (sun9i) SoCs support"
>> >
>> > With the new naming scheme, I wonder wether it makes sense to have the
>> > A80 displayed here and in the machine definition.
>>
>> I expect anything that falls under sun9i to be compatible, or a trimmed
>> down version. But that's just me.
>
> Well, compatible is a rather vague notion. They will be different for
> sure. Maybe not that different, but still.

So what you're saying is we have a MACH_* Kconfig symbol for each SoC.
As we add or test drivers, we mark them as compatible by adding that
symbol to the DEPENDS part?

I can live with that.

>> We know that Allwinner has released the A33, which should be compatible
>> with the A23, sun8i.
>
> Except that it would not be straight forward for an A33 user for
> example that he needs to enable the A23 support.

Having the SoC name in the description should be enough. But I
suppose having the SoC name in the symbol is better, as it is
searchable?

Is this what you want? I think it's a good idea.


ChenYu

>> And the A83 has been announced, which looks like a trimmed down
>> version of the A80. The next SoC should be arm64, and would not
>> matter here.
>>
>> Kevin, Shuge, could you provide us with the codenames for the A33 and
>> A83, and what earlier SoC they are based on?
>
> Even though it would be nice to know, it's not really the issue here.