Subject: [PATCH 1/2] arm64: Kconfig: add basic support for the Tegra SoC family and the Tegra132 SoC

From: [email-masked] (Paul Walmsley)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 03:37:04 -0700

Hi Thierry,

On 01/07/2015 07:20 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>
> On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 01:17:33AM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
>> Add basic Kbuild support for the Tegra SoC family, and specifically,
>> the Tegra132 SoC.  Tegra132 pairs the NVIDIA Denver CPU complex with
>> the SoC integration of Tegra124 - hence the use of ARCH_TEGRA and the
>> Tegra124 pinctrl option.
>>
>> For the time being, Tegra ARM64 support is added with a dependency on
>> CONFIG_BROKEN.  This is temporary and can be removed when the
>> following two patches for compilation failures have been merged:
>>
>> "soc: tegra: pmc: restrict compilation of suspend-related support to ARM"
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/pjw/tegra-dev.git/commit/?id=053decbf3900d4e8fee799f9a29cf8d905b2fcb1
> I think you said you were going to respin this on top of v3.19-rc1, but
> the above doesn't seem to be rebased yet. Given that the only comments
> were bikeshed from my part, do you have any objections to me taking the
> patch and apply the bikeshed myself?

Sorry about that.  I am indeed on the hook for that.   I got distracted 
with some other patches and haven't yet reposted that one :-(
I will do that later today.  If you would prefer to do it yourself, 
that's fine too.

>> "clocksource: tegra: wrap arch/arm-specific sections in CONFIG_ARM"
>> https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/pjw/tegra-dev.git/commit/?id=220aa7fcc74a1a089916be6cb34b0e326f31841f
> I don't think I've seen any comments other than mine on this patch.
> Given that this patch depends on the above to get rid of the BROKEN
> dependency, it might still be preferable to take both via the Tegra
> tree. Otherwise we probably have to wait until v3.21 before we can
> apply this.

I'm fine with them going in through you if you have a strong preference 
for that approach.   Generally my preference is for patches to go in 
through the direct maintainer's tree to minimize the risk and hassle of 
merge conflicts.  But if you'll take care of that side of it, it doesn't 
matter too much to me :-)   We just need to pick up acks from the direct 
maintainers, I guess?

- Paul