| Message ID | 20190731195713.3150463-1-arnd@arndb.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | ARM: move lpc32xx and dove to multiplatform | expand |
On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:56:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > For dove, the patches are basically what I had proposed back in > 2015 when all other ARMv6/ARMv7 machines became part of a single > kernel build. I don't know what the state is mach-dove support is, > compared to the DT based support in mach-mvebu for the same > hardware. If they are functionally the same, we could also just > remove mach-dove rather than applying my patches. Well, the good news is that I'm down to a small board support file for the Dove Cubox now - but the bad news is, that there's still a board support file necessary to support everything the Dove SoC has to offer. Even for a DT based Dove Cubox, I'm still using mach-dove, but it may be possible to drop most of mach-dove now. Without spending a lot of time digging through it, it's impossible to really know.
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:53 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:56:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > For dove, the patches are basically what I had proposed back in > > 2015 when all other ARMv6/ARMv7 machines became part of a single > > kernel build. I don't know what the state is mach-dove support is, > > compared to the DT based support in mach-mvebu for the same > > hardware. If they are functionally the same, we could also just > > remove mach-dove rather than applying my patches. > > Well, the good news is that I'm down to a small board support file > for the Dove Cubox now - but the bad news is, that there's still a > board support file necessary to support everything the Dove SoC has > to offer. > > Even for a DT based Dove Cubox, I'm still using mach-dove, but it > may be possible to drop most of mach-dove now. Without spending a > lot of time digging through it, it's impossible to really know. Ok, so we won't remove it then, but I'd like to merge my patches to at least get away from the special case of requiring a separate kernel image for it. Can you try if applying patches 12 and 14 from my series causes problems for you? (it may be easier to apply the entire set or pull from [1] to avoid rebase conflicts). Arnd [1] kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/arnd/playground.git mach-cleanup-5.4 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#222): https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/message/222 Mute This Topic: https://linux.kernel.org/mt/32671496/1554929 Group Owner: patchwork-soc+owner@linux.kernel.org Unsubscribe: https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/unsub [patchwork-linux-kernel-org@patchwork.kernel.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:33 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:53 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:56:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > For dove, the patches are basically what I had proposed back in > > > 2015 when all other ARMv6/ARMv7 machines became part of a single > > > kernel build. I don't know what the state is mach-dove support is, > > > compared to the DT based support in mach-mvebu for the same > > > hardware. If they are functionally the same, we could also just > > > remove mach-dove rather than applying my patches. > > > > Well, the good news is that I'm down to a small board support file > > for the Dove Cubox now - but the bad news is, that there's still a > > board support file necessary to support everything the Dove SoC has > > to offer. > > > > Even for a DT based Dove Cubox, I'm still using mach-dove, but it > > may be possible to drop most of mach-dove now. Without spending a > > lot of time digging through it, it's impossible to really know. > > Ok, so we won't remove it then, but I'd like to merge my patches to > at least get away from the special case of requiring a separate kernel > image for it. > > Can you try if applying patches 12 and 14 from my series causes > problems for you? (it may be easier to apply the entire set > or pull from [1] to avoid rebase conflicts). I applied patches 12 and 13 into the soc tree now. There are some other pending multiplatform conversions (iop32x, ep93xx, lpc32xx, omap1), but it looks like none of those will be complete for 5.4. I now expect that we can get most of the preparation into 5.4, and maybe move them all over together in 5.5 after some more testing. If someone finds a problem with the one of the preparation steps, that we can revert the individual patches more easily. Arnd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#352): https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/message/352 Mute This Topic: https://linux.kernel.org/mt/32671496/1554929 Group Owner: patchwork-soc+owner@linux.kernel.org Unsubscribe: https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/unsub [patchwork-linux-kernel-org@patchwork.kernel.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Hi Arnd, On 8/15/19 9:11 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:33 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 12:53 AM Russell King - ARM Linux admin >> <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 09:56:42PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> For dove, the patches are basically what I had proposed back in >>>> 2015 when all other ARMv6/ARMv7 machines became part of a single >>>> kernel build. I don't know what the state is mach-dove support is, >>>> compared to the DT based support in mach-mvebu for the same >>>> hardware. If they are functionally the same, we could also just >>>> remove mach-dove rather than applying my patches. >>> >>> Well, the good news is that I'm down to a small board support file >>> for the Dove Cubox now - but the bad news is, that there's still a >>> board support file necessary to support everything the Dove SoC has >>> to offer. >>> >>> Even for a DT based Dove Cubox, I'm still using mach-dove, but it >>> may be possible to drop most of mach-dove now. Without spending a >>> lot of time digging through it, it's impossible to really know. >> >> Ok, so we won't remove it then, but I'd like to merge my patches to >> at least get away from the special case of requiring a separate kernel >> image for it. >> >> Can you try if applying patches 12 and 14 from my series causes >> problems for you? (it may be easier to apply the entire set >> or pull from [1] to avoid rebase conflicts). > > I applied patches 12 and 13 into the soc tree now. There are some > other pending multiplatform conversions (iop32x, ep93xx, lpc32xx, > omap1), but it looks like none of those will be complete for 5.4. I think the patchset (v2) for the LPC32xx is ready for 5.4 ([PATCH v2 00/13] v2: ARM: move lpc32xx to multiplatform) > > I now expect that we can get most of the preparation into 5.4, > and maybe move them all over together in 5.5 after some more > testing. If someone finds a problem with the one of the > preparation steps, that we can revert the individual patches > more easily. > > Arnd > Sylvain -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#354): https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/message/354 Mute This Topic: https://linux.kernel.org/mt/32671496/1554929 Group Owner: patchwork-soc+owner@linux.kernel.org Unsubscribe: https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/unsub [patchwork-linux-kernel-org@patchwork.kernel.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:32 PM Sylvain Lemieux <slemieux.tyco@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/15/19 9:11 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 9:33 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > I applied patches 12 and 13 into the soc tree now. There are some > > other pending multiplatform conversions (iop32x, ep93xx, lpc32xx, > > omap1), but it looks like none of those will be complete for 5.4. > > I think the patchset (v2) for the LPC32xx is ready for 5.4 > ([PATCH v2 00/13] v2: ARM: move lpc32xx to multiplatform) Good point. I've merged these into the arm/soc branch now. Arnd -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#355): https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/message/355 Mute This Topic: https://linux.kernel.org/mt/32671496/1554929 Group Owner: patchwork-soc+owner@linux.kernel.org Unsubscribe: https://linux.kernel.org/g/patchwork-soc/unsub [patchwork-linux-kernel-org@patchwork.kernel.org] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I revisited some older patches here, getting two of the remaining ARM platforms to build with ARCH_MULTIPLATFORM like most others do. In case of lpc32xx, I created a new set of patches, which seemed easier than digging out what I did for an older release many years ago. For dove, the patches are basically what I had proposed back in 2015 when all other ARMv6/ARMv7 machines became part of a single kernel build. I don't know what the state is mach-dove support is, compared to the DT based support in mach-mvebu for the same hardware. If they are functionally the same, we could also just remove mach-dove rather than applying my patches. I also created patches to remove the w90x900 and ks8695 platforms that seem to have lost their last users a few years ago. I will post them separately, but plan to apply them in the same branch for linux-5.4 if there are no objections. Arnd Arnd Bergmann (14): usb: ohci-nxp: enable compile-testing usb: udc: lpc32xx: allow compile-testing watchdog: pnx4008_wdt: allow compile-testing serial: lpc32xx_hs: allow compile-testing gpio: lpc32xx: allow building on non-lpc32xx targets net: lpc-enet: factor out iram access net: lpc-enet: move phy setup into platform code net: lpc-enet: allow compile testing serial: lpc32xx: allow compile testing ARM: lpc32xx: clean up header files ARM: lpc32xx: allow multiplatform build ARM: dove: clean up mach/*.h headers ARM: orion/mvebu: unify debug-ll virtual addresses ARM: dove: multiplatform support arch/arm/Kconfig | 33 +--------- arch/arm/Kconfig.debug | 5 +- arch/arm/configs/dove_defconfig | 2 + arch/arm/configs/lpc32xx_defconfig | 1 + arch/arm/mach-dove/Kconfig | 16 +++-- arch/arm/mach-dove/Makefile | 2 + .../{include/mach => }/bridge-regs.h | 4 +- arch/arm/mach-dove/cm-a510.c | 3 +- arch/arm/mach-dove/common.c | 4 +- arch/arm/mach-dove/dove-db-setup.c | 2 +- arch/arm/mach-dove/{include/mach => }/dove.h | 14 ++--- arch/arm/mach-dove/include/mach/hardware.h | 19 ------ arch/arm/mach-dove/include/mach/uncompress.h | 36 ----------- arch/arm/mach-dove/irq.c | 5 +- arch/arm/mach-dove/{include/mach => }/irqs.h | 2 - arch/arm/mach-dove/mpp.c | 2 +- arch/arm/mach-dove/pcie.c | 4 +- arch/arm/mach-dove/{include/mach => }/pm.h | 4 +- arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/Kconfig | 11 ++++ arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/common.c | 24 +++++-- arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/common.h | 1 - arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/include/mach/board.h | 15 ----- .../mach-lpc32xx/include/mach/entry-macro.S | 28 --------- arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/include/mach/hardware.h | 25 -------- .../mach-lpc32xx/include/mach/uncompress.h | 50 --------------- .../{include/mach/platform.h => lpc32xx.h} | 18 +++++- arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/pm.c | 3 +- arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/serial.c | 33 +++++++++- arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/suspend.S | 3 +- arch/arm/mach-mv78xx0/mv78xx0.h | 4 +- arch/arm/mach-orion5x/orion5x.h | 4 +- drivers/gpio/Kconfig | 8 +++ drivers/gpio/Makefile | 2 +- drivers/gpio/gpio-lpc32xx.c | 63 ++++++++++++------- drivers/net/ethernet/nxp/Kconfig | 2 +- drivers/net/ethernet/nxp/lpc_eth.c | 30 +++------ drivers/tty/serial/Kconfig | 3 +- drivers/tty/serial/lpc32xx_hs.c | 37 ++--------- drivers/usb/gadget/udc/Kconfig | 3 +- drivers/usb/gadget/udc/lpc32xx_udc.c | 2 - drivers/usb/host/Kconfig | 3 +- drivers/usb/host/ohci-nxp.c | 25 +++++--- drivers/watchdog/Kconfig | 2 +- drivers/watchdog/pnx4008_wdt.c | 1 - include/linux/soc/nxp/lpc32xx-misc.h | 33 ++++++++++ 45 files changed, 246 insertions(+), 345 deletions(-) rename arch/arm/mach-dove/{include/mach => }/bridge-regs.h (96%) rename arch/arm/mach-dove/{include/mach => }/dove.h (95%) delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-dove/include/mach/hardware.h delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-dove/include/mach/uncompress.h rename arch/arm/mach-dove/{include/mach => }/irqs.h (98%) rename arch/arm/mach-dove/{include/mach => }/pm.h (97%) create mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/Kconfig delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/include/mach/board.h delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/include/mach/entry-macro.S delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/include/mach/hardware.h delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/include/mach/uncompress.h rename arch/arm/mach-lpc32xx/{include/mach/platform.h => lpc32xx.h} (98%) create mode 100644 include/linux/soc/nxp/lpc32xx-misc.h