[PATCH 00/22] sunxi: Prepare platform Kconfig to support multiple architectures

[Samuel Holland]

On 11/3/22 11:46, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Tue,  1 Nov 2022 00:08:12 -0500
> Samuel Holland <samuel at sholland.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Samuel,
> 
>> sunxi is getting a new RISC-V platform, D1. We want to share as much of
>> the existing configuration as possible, to provide a familiar
>> environment, DRAM layout, partition layout, etc.
>>
>> Because U-Boot includes all architecture Kconfig files at once, we must
>> use a symbol outside of both CONFIG_ARM and CONFIG_RISCV to contain
>> shared Kconfig options. I chose BOARD_SUNXI, corresponding to the file
>> location and somewhat following the BOARD_SPECIFIC_OPTIONS pattern.
> 
> many thanks for sending this, indeed our Kconfig deserved some cleanups,
> plus we need to fix the woes with RISC-V.
> I just skimmed over this for now, and it seems to look good.
> 
> I have some gripes with the name BOARD_SUNXI though. Bad enough we have
> board-agnostic generic code in board/sunxi, but maybe we shouldn't add to
> the confusion. Would PLAT_SUNXI be a better name? After all it's all about
> the Allwinner platform (and not even "architecture", for that matter).

I am fine with either name. "board" is U-Boot's name for the level of
abstraction we are working at. I don't know that it necessarily has to
refer to code for a _single_ board, as opposed to code that glues things
together at the "board level" outside the CPU/SoC. But I can see where
the confusion comes from. Let me know what you want me to do, and I can
adjust/resend the series.

>> I did a buildman run on this series. The only net option changes are the
>> expected ones:
>>  - Host-side USB gets enabled on several boards by the first patch
>>    (emlid_neutis_n5_devboard orangepi_zero2 pinephone pinetab tanix_tx6
>>    x96_mate teres_i)
>>  - CONFIG_BOARD_SUNXI gets added everywhere
>>  - CONFIG_SYS_I2C_MVTWSI gets enabled by the corresponding patch
>>
>> Andre, please feel free to take any subset of these; they don't all have
>> to go in at once. And I'm open to suggestions about what instances of
>> ARCH_SUNXI should (not) be converted. Some of them are open to opinion.
> 
> Yeah, I will definitely cherry-pick some patches, especially the more
> innocent ones. I will run my before/after defconfig comparisons to test
> them.

I used buildman's -K option to get the list above; it outputs the list
of individual boards with option changes per patch.

Regards,
Samuel