[PATCH] arm64: amd-seattle: Adding device tree for AMD Seattle platform

[Alexander Graf]

> Am 28.10.2014 um 14:07 schrieb Suravee Suthikulanit <suravee.suthikulpanit at amd.com>:
> 
>> On 10/27/2014 6:25 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 27.10.14 15:29, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
>>> On 10/26/2014 9:08 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>>>> This option doesn't exist in upstream kernels, does it? Why not just
>>>>>>>> make it dtb-y?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE is being added one hunk above.:)
>>>> Oops:).
>>>> 
>>>> I'm not convinced we need a config option just for the sake of
>>>> compiling a device tree though.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Alex
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Eventually, we would add other device driver selections when
>>> CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE=y. At this point, those drivers are still not ready.
>> 
>> Could you please give me some examples of drivers that would depend on
>> CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE? I like the current way things work without the need
>> for such an option, where everything's implemented purely as drivers you
>> can opt in our out of.
>> 
>> You don't have a CONFIG_ARCH_SB7XX on x86 either, right? ;)
>> 
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
> 
> I am not saying that device drivers need to depend on CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE. I am thinking along the line of an easy way to enable SOC without having to manually select each of the required drivers to support the SOC. An example is the "ARCH_VEXPRESS".

Works for me, but then please don't make anything depend on CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE. Everything you need for seattle support should be possible to select without the easy enable switch until we see a good reason to have one ;).

So in this particular case, we shouldn't build the device tree depending on CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE but rather slways which again means the switch does not need to get introduced by this patch ;)

But at the end of the day, this is Catalin's subsystem and his opinion counts more than mine. Catalin, do you have strong feelings in any direction here?


Alex