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

[Liviu Dudau]

On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 01:07:49PM +0000, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote:
> 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".

ARCH_VEXPRESS is an historical artifact and we have discussed a few times
internally in ARM to remove it as it brings no value until some other platform
can't work with the default options comes in.

I agree with Alexander here, I think the device tree should be compiled
in regardless. One reason for it is because it will make it easier to
dis-entangle the .dt{s,b} files from the tree in the future and have them
hosted in a different place.

Best regards,
Liviu

> 
> Suravee
> 
> 

-- 
====================
| I would like to |
| fix the world,  |
| but they're not |
| giving me the   |
 \ source code!  /
  ---------------
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯