[PATCH v9 2/2] arm-soc: Add support for tango4 platforms
khilman at kernel.org
Wed Nov 18 11:39:55 PST 2015
Måns Rullgård <mans at mansr.com> writes:
> 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:
>>> 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 (SMP86x) were MIPS
> based. Tango4 is ARM based (mostly, the SMP8910 is MIPS) but otherwise
> very similar to tango3.
Thanks for the clarification.
> 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).
Well, mach-omap2 leads to enough confusion that I don't think we need to
use that as a model. ;) IMO, mach-tango is a better starting point.
> Most of the drivers support both tango3 and tango4, but apparently some
> changes are planned for tango5.
Thanks for the clarification,
More information about the linux-arm-kernel