Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760173Ab2EDVMP (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2012 17:12:15 -0400 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([193.178.161.156]:54195 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760161Ab2EDVML (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2012 17:12:11 -0400 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/02] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 - first shot Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 23:16:55 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.4.0-rc5+; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Magnus Damm , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, horms@verge.net.au, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, lethal@linux-sh.org, olof@lixom.net References: <20120503144645.6390.62303.sendpatchset@w520> <201205041957.14205.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: <201205041957.14205.arnd@arndb.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201205042316.55593.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1587 Lines: 37 On Friday, May 04, 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 03 May 2012, Magnus Damm wrote: > > mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 - first shot > > > > [PATCH 01/02] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 SoC base support > > [PATCH 02/02] mach-shmobile: KZM9D board prototype support > > > > This series adds experimental Emma Mobile EV2 support to > > mach-shmobile. Yet another dual core Cortex-A9 SoC. > > > > At this point only serial and timer is supported. Future work > > includes GPIO, network device, SMP and DT support. If possible > > it would be nice to use the common clocks on this platform. > > > > To boot this on actual hardware you also need the following: > > "[PATCH] serial8250-em: Emma Mobile UART driver V2" > > "[PATCH] clocksource: em_sti: Emma Mobile STI driver" > > > > Any reason to not put this in mach-shmobile? > > Well, from all I can tell it shares basically zero code with the > rest of mach-shmobile, so I would be more comfortable with creating > a new mach-emma directory for this. I'm not sure if I understand your point correctly, so please let me clarify. Do you think it's better to have a separate mach-emma directory for the new hardware because technically it is a different platform and the fact that it was developed by the same manufacturer as the mach-shmobile hardware is less important? Rafael -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/