[PATCH v2 3/4] arm64: Add Broadcom iProc family support
f.fainelli at gmail.com
Wed Jul 15 15:11:16 PDT 2015
On 15/07/15 15:03, Ray Jui wrote:
> On 7/15/2015 2:53 PM, Hauke Mehrtens wrote:
>> On 07/15/2015 06:42 AM, Ray Jui wrote:
>>> This patch adds support to Broadcom's iProc family of arm64 based SoCs
>>> in the arm64 Kconfig and defconfig files
>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <rjui at broadcom.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <sbranden at broadcom.com>
>>> arch/arm64/Kconfig | 5 +++++
>>> arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 2 ++
>>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>> index 318175f..969ef4a 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
>>> @@ -162,6 +162,11 @@ source "kernel/Kconfig.freezer"
>>> menu "Platform selection"
>>> +config ARCH_BCM_IPROC
>>> + bool "Broadcom iProc SoC Family"
>>> + help
>>> + This enables support for Broadcom iProc based SoCs
>> Is this working correctly if we have ARCH_BCM_IPROC under ARM and ARM64?
>> They are guarding the same SoC line, which now uses ARM64 CPUS.
> Yes, since the "ARCH=" parameter from the compiler helps to route it to
> the right directory, arch/arm or arch/arm64, and you cannot compile both
> in a single image. Same case for other SoCs, e.g., tegra (ARCH_TEGRA),
> exynos (ARCH_EXYNOS), and etc.
> The benefit of sharing the same arch flag is that the device driver that
> exists in iProc family of SoCs (both arm32 and arm64) can be guarded or
> enabled properly.
Yes, I like that as well, better maintain a single symbol across two
architectures than multiple across multiple architectures.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel