[U-Boot] [linux-sunxi] Re: [PATCH v2 11/13] sunxi: introduce Allwinner H5 config option

[Andre Przywara]

Hi Maxime, Icenowy,

On 26/01/17 11:40, Icenowy Zheng wrote:
> 
> 2017年1月26日 18:45于 Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard at free-electrons.com>写道：
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 02:22:45AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: 
>>> The Allwinner H5 Soc is bascially an H3 with high SRAM and ARMv8 cores. 
>>> As the peripherals and the pinmuxing are almost identical, we piggy 
>>> back on the shared MACH_SUN8I_H3_H5 config symbol. 
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara at arm.com> 
>>> --- 
>>>   arch/arm/mach-sunxi/cpu_info.c |  2 ++ 
>>>   board/sunxi/Kconfig            | 10 ++++++++++ 
>>>   2 files changed, 12 insertions(+) 
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/cpu_info.c b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/cpu_info.c 
>>> index f1f6fd5..85633cc 100644 
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/cpu_info.c 
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/cpu_info.c 
>>> @@ -91,6 +91,8 @@ int print_cpuinfo(void) 
>>>   puts("CPU:   Allwinner A80 (SUN9I)\n"); 
>>>   #elif defined CONFIG_MACH_SUN50I 
>>>   puts("CPU:   Allwinner A64 (SUN50I)\n"); 
>>> +#elif defined CONFIG_MACH_SUN50I_H5 
>>> + puts("CPU:   Allwinner H5 (SUN50I)\n"); 
>>>   #else 
>>>   #warning Please update cpu_info.c with correct CPU information 
>>>   puts("CPU:   SUNXI Family\n"); 
>>> diff --git a/board/sunxi/Kconfig b/board/sunxi/Kconfig 
>>> index a63e176..87ec77e 100644 
>>> --- a/board/sunxi/Kconfig 
>>> +++ b/board/sunxi/Kconfig 
>>> @@ -56,6 +56,11 @@ config MACH_SUNXI_H3_H5 
>>>   select SUNXI_GEN_SUN6I 
>>>   select SUPPORT_SPL 
>>>   
>>> +config MACH_SUN50I_H5 
>>> + bool 
>>> + select SUNXI_HIGH_SRAM 
>>> + select MACH_SUNXI_H3_H5 
>>> + 
>>>   choice 
>>>   prompt "Sunxi SoC Variant" 
>>>   optional 
>>> @@ -143,6 +148,11 @@ config MACH_SUN50I 
>>>   select SUNXI_HIGH_SRAM 
>>>   select SUPPORT_SPL 
>>>   
>>> +config MACH_SUN50I_H5_64 
>>> + bool "sun50i (Allwinner H5)" 
>>> + select ARM64 
>>> + select MACH_SUN50I_H5 
>>> + 
>>
>> Why do we need two different MACH ? 

Ah, thanks for spotting this!

> For adding 32-bit SPL or even fully 32-bit system options.

Yes, but actually that's not implemented in this series. Looks like some
rebasing artifact.

I think I will remove it here for this pure 64-bit drop.
_If_ we need it later on, we can always add it back when we merge some
32-bit support. But we could as well use "#if defined(MACH_SUN50I_H5) &&
defined(ARM64)" if we need to do anything specific.
I hope that this will not be needed, but we'll see.

Cheers,
Andre.