[PATCH v9 2/2] arm-soc: Add support for tango4 platforms

[Måns Rullgård]

Kevin Hilman <khilman at kernel.org> writes:

> Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez at sigmadesigns.com> writes:
>
>> Add support for Sigma Designs ARM-based Tango4 "Secure Media Processor"
>> platforms (i.e. smp8734, smp8756, smp8758, smp8759) built around the
>> Cortex-A9 MPCore r3p0 (all dual-core, except the 8756).
>>
>> Support for older MIPS-based platforms can be found elsewhere:
>> https://github.com/mansr/linux-tangox
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez at sigmadesigns.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/arm/Kconfig              |  2 ++
>>  arch/arm/Makefile             |  1 +
>>  arch/arm/mach-tangox/Kconfig  | 12 ++++++++++++
>>  arch/arm/mach-tangox/Makefile |  2 ++
>>  arch/arm/mach-tangox/setup.c  | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  arch/arm/mach-tangox/smc.S    |  9 +++++++++
>>  arch/arm/mach-tangox/smc.h    |  5 +++++
>
> Potential bike-shed fodder, but, a dumb question: is the family name
> actually "tangox" or is the "x" for the number (tango3, tango4, etc.)
>
> Assuming it's the later based on usage throughout the patch, I think
> it'd be better to just use "tango" throughout instead of tangox.

The x indeed stands for a number.  I have no idea what tango1 was or if
it ever existed.  Tango2 (SMP863x) and tango3 (SMP86[457]x) were MIPS
based.  Tango4 is ARM based (mostly, the SMP8910 is MIPS) but otherwise
very similar to tango3.  Since we don't know what tango5 will look like,
mach-tango4 might be more suitable here.  If tango5 turns out to be
sufficiently similar, there's no harm from adding support for that to
the mach-tango4 code (just look at mach-omap2).

Most of the drivers support both tango3 and tango4, but apparently some
changes are planned for tango5.

-- 
Måns Rullgård
mans at mansr.com