Subject: [PATCH 02/13] ARM: OMAP5: Add minimal support for OMAP5430 SOC

From: [email-masked] (Tony Lindgren)
Date: Tue, 8 May 2012 08:48:29 -0700

* Hiremath, Vaibhav <[email-masked]> [120507 22:52]:
> On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 01:05:01, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > * Tony Lindgren <[email-masked]> [120507 12:22]:
> > > * Paul Walmsley <[email-masked]> [120507 12:11]:
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, 4 May 2012, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > How about we add CONFIG_SOC_OMAP3PLUS in the clean-up series?
> > > > > Then this becomes just:
> > > > > 
> > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SOC_OMAP3PLUS
> > > > 
> > > > We might want to consider having separate CONFIG_SOC_* values for each 
> > > > SoC.  So rather than CONFIG_SOC_OMAP3PLUS, we'd have CONFIG_SOC_OMAP3430, 
> > > > CONFIG_SOC_OMAP3630, etc.
> > > 
> > > Hmm but this would be in addition to the SOC specific options. The goal
> > > is to cut down the ifdeffery needed all over the place to add new SoCs,
> > > see the experimental patch I posted:
> > > 
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap at vger.kernel.org/msg67938.html
> > 
> > Of course we could make this finer grained based on features
> > like SOC_HAS_XYZ or SOC_HAS_OMAP3PLUS_PRMXYZBITS if you have some
> > grouping like that in mind.
> > 
> 
> This is much better approach than both ARCH_OMAPx and SOC_OMAPxxxx.

OK good, so now the question is just what groupings we need.. Got any
suggestions?

Regards,

Tony