linux/arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig

212 lines
5.0 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

if ARCH_AT91
config HAVE_AT91_DBGU0
bool
config HAVE_AT91_DBGU1
bool
config AT91_PMC_UNIT
bool
default !ARCH_AT91X40
config AT91_SAM9_ALT_RESET
bool
default !ARCH_AT91X40
config AT91_SAM9G45_RESET
bool
default !ARCH_AT91X40
config AT91_SAM9_TIME
bool
config SOC_AT91SAM9
bool
select AT91_SAM9_TIME
select CPU_ARM926T
ARM: config: sort select statements alphanumerically As suggested by Andrew Morton: This is a pet peeve of mine. Any time there's a long list of items (header file inclusions, kconfig entries, array initalisers, etc) and someone wants to add a new item, they *always* go and stick it at the end of the list. Guys, don't do this. Either put the new item into a randomly-chosen position or, probably better, alphanumerically sort the list. lets sort all our select statements alphanumerically. This commit was created by the following perl: while (<>) { while (/\\\s*$/) { $_ .= <>; } undef %selects if /^\s*config\s+/; if (/^\s+select\s+(\w+).*/) { if (defined($selects{$1})) { if ($selects{$1} eq $_) { print STDERR "Warning: removing duplicated $1 entry\n"; } else { print STDERR "Error: $1 differently selected\n". "\tOld: $selects{$1}\n". "\tNew: $_\n"; exit 1; } } $selects{$1} = $_; next; } if (%selects and (/^\s*$/ or /^\s+help/ or /^\s+---help---/ or /^endif/ or /^endchoice/)) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } undef %selects; } print; } if (%selects) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } } It found two duplicates: Warning: removing duplicated S5P_SETUP_MIPIPHY entry Warning: removing duplicated HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND entry and they are identical duplicates, hence the shrinkage in the diffstat of two lines. We have four testers reporting success of this change (Tony, Stephen, Linus and Sekhar.) Acked-by: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Acked-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2012-10-06 16:12:25 +00:00
select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
select MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
select SPARSE_IRQ
config SOC_SAMA5
bool
select AT91_SAM9_TIME
select CPU_V7
select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
select MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
select SPARSE_IRQ
menu "Atmel AT91 System-on-Chip"
choice
prompt "Core type"
config SOC_SAM_V4_V5
bool "ARM7/ARM9"
help
Select this if you are using one of Atmel's AT91SAM9, AT91RM9200
or AT91X40 SoC.
config SOC_SAM_V7
bool "Cortex A5"
help
Select this if you are using one of Atmel's SAMA5D3 SoC.
endchoice
comment "Atmel AT91 Processor"
if SOC_SAM_V7
config SOC_SAMA5D3
bool "SAMA5D3 family"
depends on SOC_SAM_V7
select SOC_SAMA5
select HAVE_FB_ATMEL
select HAVE_AT91_DBGU1
help
Select this if you are using one of Atmel's SAMA5D3 family SoC.
This support covers SAMA5D31, SAMA5D33, SAMA5D34, SAMA5D35.
endif
if SOC_SAM_V4_V5
config SOC_AT91RM9200
bool "AT91RM9200"
select CPU_ARM920T
select GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS
select HAVE_AT91_DBGU0
ARM: config: sort select statements alphanumerically As suggested by Andrew Morton: This is a pet peeve of mine. Any time there's a long list of items (header file inclusions, kconfig entries, array initalisers, etc) and someone wants to add a new item, they *always* go and stick it at the end of the list. Guys, don't do this. Either put the new item into a randomly-chosen position or, probably better, alphanumerically sort the list. lets sort all our select statements alphanumerically. This commit was created by the following perl: while (<>) { while (/\\\s*$/) { $_ .= <>; } undef %selects if /^\s*config\s+/; if (/^\s+select\s+(\w+).*/) { if (defined($selects{$1})) { if ($selects{$1} eq $_) { print STDERR "Warning: removing duplicated $1 entry\n"; } else { print STDERR "Error: $1 differently selected\n". "\tOld: $selects{$1}\n". "\tNew: $_\n"; exit 1; } } $selects{$1} = $_; next; } if (%selects and (/^\s*$/ or /^\s+help/ or /^\s+---help---/ or /^endif/ or /^endchoice/)) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } undef %selects; } print; } if (%selects) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } } It found two duplicates: Warning: removing duplicated S5P_SETUP_MIPIPHY entry Warning: removing duplicated HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND entry and they are identical duplicates, hence the shrinkage in the diffstat of two lines. We have four testers reporting success of this change (Tony, Stephen, Linus and Sekhar.) Acked-by: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Acked-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2012-10-06 16:12:25 +00:00
select MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
select SPARSE_IRQ
config SOC_AT91SAM9260
bool "AT91SAM9260, AT91SAM9XE or AT91SAM9G20"
select HAVE_AT91_DBGU0
ARM: config: sort select statements alphanumerically As suggested by Andrew Morton: This is a pet peeve of mine. Any time there's a long list of items (header file inclusions, kconfig entries, array initalisers, etc) and someone wants to add a new item, they *always* go and stick it at the end of the list. Guys, don't do this. Either put the new item into a randomly-chosen position or, probably better, alphanumerically sort the list. lets sort all our select statements alphanumerically. This commit was created by the following perl: while (<>) { while (/\\\s*$/) { $_ .= <>; } undef %selects if /^\s*config\s+/; if (/^\s+select\s+(\w+).*/) { if (defined($selects{$1})) { if ($selects{$1} eq $_) { print STDERR "Warning: removing duplicated $1 entry\n"; } else { print STDERR "Error: $1 differently selected\n". "\tOld: $selects{$1}\n". "\tNew: $_\n"; exit 1; } } $selects{$1} = $_; next; } if (%selects and (/^\s*$/ or /^\s+help/ or /^\s+---help---/ or /^endif/ or /^endchoice/)) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } undef %selects; } print; } if (%selects) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } } It found two duplicates: Warning: removing duplicated S5P_SETUP_MIPIPHY entry Warning: removing duplicated HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND entry and they are identical duplicates, hence the shrinkage in the diffstat of two lines. We have four testers reporting success of this change (Tony, Stephen, Linus and Sekhar.) Acked-by: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Acked-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2012-10-06 16:12:25 +00:00
select SOC_AT91SAM9
help
Select this if you are using one of Atmel's AT91SAM9260, AT91SAM9XE
or AT91SAM9G20 SoC.
config SOC_AT91SAM9261
bool "AT91SAM9261 or AT91SAM9G10"
select HAVE_AT91_DBGU0
select HAVE_FB_ATMEL
ARM: config: sort select statements alphanumerically As suggested by Andrew Morton: This is a pet peeve of mine. Any time there's a long list of items (header file inclusions, kconfig entries, array initalisers, etc) and someone wants to add a new item, they *always* go and stick it at the end of the list. Guys, don't do this. Either put the new item into a randomly-chosen position or, probably better, alphanumerically sort the list. lets sort all our select statements alphanumerically. This commit was created by the following perl: while (<>) { while (/\\\s*$/) { $_ .= <>; } undef %selects if /^\s*config\s+/; if (/^\s+select\s+(\w+).*/) { if (defined($selects{$1})) { if ($selects{$1} eq $_) { print STDERR "Warning: removing duplicated $1 entry\n"; } else { print STDERR "Error: $1 differently selected\n". "\tOld: $selects{$1}\n". "\tNew: $_\n"; exit 1; } } $selects{$1} = $_; next; } if (%selects and (/^\s*$/ or /^\s+help/ or /^\s+---help---/ or /^endif/ or /^endchoice/)) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } undef %selects; } print; } if (%selects) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } } It found two duplicates: Warning: removing duplicated S5P_SETUP_MIPIPHY entry Warning: removing duplicated HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND entry and they are identical duplicates, hence the shrinkage in the diffstat of two lines. We have four testers reporting success of this change (Tony, Stephen, Linus and Sekhar.) Acked-by: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Acked-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2012-10-06 16:12:25 +00:00
select SOC_AT91SAM9
help
Select this if you are using one of Atmel's AT91SAM9261 or AT91SAM9G10 SoC.
config SOC_AT91SAM9263
bool "AT91SAM9263"
select HAVE_AT91_DBGU1
select HAVE_FB_ATMEL
ARM: config: sort select statements alphanumerically As suggested by Andrew Morton: This is a pet peeve of mine. Any time there's a long list of items (header file inclusions, kconfig entries, array initalisers, etc) and someone wants to add a new item, they *always* go and stick it at the end of the list. Guys, don't do this. Either put the new item into a randomly-chosen position or, probably better, alphanumerically sort the list. lets sort all our select statements alphanumerically. This commit was created by the following perl: while (<>) { while (/\\\s*$/) { $_ .= <>; } undef %selects if /^\s*config\s+/; if (/^\s+select\s+(\w+).*/) { if (defined($selects{$1})) { if ($selects{$1} eq $_) { print STDERR "Warning: removing duplicated $1 entry\n"; } else { print STDERR "Error: $1 differently selected\n". "\tOld: $selects{$1}\n". "\tNew: $_\n"; exit 1; } } $selects{$1} = $_; next; } if (%selects and (/^\s*$/ or /^\s+help/ or /^\s+---help---/ or /^endif/ or /^endchoice/)) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } undef %selects; } print; } if (%selects) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } } It found two duplicates: Warning: removing duplicated S5P_SETUP_MIPIPHY entry Warning: removing duplicated HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND entry and they are identical duplicates, hence the shrinkage in the diffstat of two lines. We have four testers reporting success of this change (Tony, Stephen, Linus and Sekhar.) Acked-by: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Acked-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2012-10-06 16:12:25 +00:00
select SOC_AT91SAM9
config SOC_AT91SAM9RL
bool "AT91SAM9RL"
select HAVE_AT91_DBGU0
select HAVE_FB_ATMEL
ARM: config: sort select statements alphanumerically As suggested by Andrew Morton: This is a pet peeve of mine. Any time there's a long list of items (header file inclusions, kconfig entries, array initalisers, etc) and someone wants to add a new item, they *always* go and stick it at the end of the list. Guys, don't do this. Either put the new item into a randomly-chosen position or, probably better, alphanumerically sort the list. lets sort all our select statements alphanumerically. This commit was created by the following perl: while (<>) { while (/\\\s*$/) { $_ .= <>; } undef %selects if /^\s*config\s+/; if (/^\s+select\s+(\w+).*/) { if (defined($selects{$1})) { if ($selects{$1} eq $_) { print STDERR "Warning: removing duplicated $1 entry\n"; } else { print STDERR "Error: $1 differently selected\n". "\tOld: $selects{$1}\n". "\tNew: $_\n"; exit 1; } } $selects{$1} = $_; next; } if (%selects and (/^\s*$/ or /^\s+help/ or /^\s+---help---/ or /^endif/ or /^endchoice/)) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } undef %selects; } print; } if (%selects) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } } It found two duplicates: Warning: removing duplicated S5P_SETUP_MIPIPHY entry Warning: removing duplicated HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND entry and they are identical duplicates, hence the shrinkage in the diffstat of two lines. We have four testers reporting success of this change (Tony, Stephen, Linus and Sekhar.) Acked-by: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Acked-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2012-10-06 16:12:25 +00:00
select SOC_AT91SAM9
config SOC_AT91SAM9G45
bool "AT91SAM9G45 or AT91SAM9M10 families"
select HAVE_AT91_DBGU1
select HAVE_FB_ATMEL
ARM: config: sort select statements alphanumerically As suggested by Andrew Morton: This is a pet peeve of mine. Any time there's a long list of items (header file inclusions, kconfig entries, array initalisers, etc) and someone wants to add a new item, they *always* go and stick it at the end of the list. Guys, don't do this. Either put the new item into a randomly-chosen position or, probably better, alphanumerically sort the list. lets sort all our select statements alphanumerically. This commit was created by the following perl: while (<>) { while (/\\\s*$/) { $_ .= <>; } undef %selects if /^\s*config\s+/; if (/^\s+select\s+(\w+).*/) { if (defined($selects{$1})) { if ($selects{$1} eq $_) { print STDERR "Warning: removing duplicated $1 entry\n"; } else { print STDERR "Error: $1 differently selected\n". "\tOld: $selects{$1}\n". "\tNew: $_\n"; exit 1; } } $selects{$1} = $_; next; } if (%selects and (/^\s*$/ or /^\s+help/ or /^\s+---help---/ or /^endif/ or /^endchoice/)) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } undef %selects; } print; } if (%selects) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } } It found two duplicates: Warning: removing duplicated S5P_SETUP_MIPIPHY entry Warning: removing duplicated HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND entry and they are identical duplicates, hence the shrinkage in the diffstat of two lines. We have four testers reporting success of this change (Tony, Stephen, Linus and Sekhar.) Acked-by: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Acked-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2012-10-06 16:12:25 +00:00
select SOC_AT91SAM9
help
Select this if you are using one of Atmel's AT91SAM9G45 family SoC.
This support covers AT91SAM9G45, AT91SAM9G46, AT91SAM9M10 and AT91SAM9M11.
config SOC_AT91SAM9X5
bool "AT91SAM9x5 family"
select HAVE_AT91_DBGU0
select HAVE_FB_ATMEL
ARM: config: sort select statements alphanumerically As suggested by Andrew Morton: This is a pet peeve of mine. Any time there's a long list of items (header file inclusions, kconfig entries, array initalisers, etc) and someone wants to add a new item, they *always* go and stick it at the end of the list. Guys, don't do this. Either put the new item into a randomly-chosen position or, probably better, alphanumerically sort the list. lets sort all our select statements alphanumerically. This commit was created by the following perl: while (<>) { while (/\\\s*$/) { $_ .= <>; } undef %selects if /^\s*config\s+/; if (/^\s+select\s+(\w+).*/) { if (defined($selects{$1})) { if ($selects{$1} eq $_) { print STDERR "Warning: removing duplicated $1 entry\n"; } else { print STDERR "Error: $1 differently selected\n". "\tOld: $selects{$1}\n". "\tNew: $_\n"; exit 1; } } $selects{$1} = $_; next; } if (%selects and (/^\s*$/ or /^\s+help/ or /^\s+---help---/ or /^endif/ or /^endchoice/)) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } undef %selects; } print; } if (%selects) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } } It found two duplicates: Warning: removing duplicated S5P_SETUP_MIPIPHY entry Warning: removing duplicated HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND entry and they are identical duplicates, hence the shrinkage in the diffstat of two lines. We have four testers reporting success of this change (Tony, Stephen, Linus and Sekhar.) Acked-by: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Acked-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2012-10-06 16:12:25 +00:00
select SOC_AT91SAM9
help
Select this if you are using one of Atmel's AT91SAM9x5 family SoC.
This means that your SAM9 name finishes with a '5' (except if it is
AT91SAM9G45!).
This support covers AT91SAM9G15, AT91SAM9G25, AT91SAM9X25, AT91SAM9G35
and AT91SAM9X35.
config SOC_AT91SAM9N12
bool "AT91SAM9N12 family"
select HAVE_AT91_DBGU0
select HAVE_FB_ATMEL
ARM: config: sort select statements alphanumerically As suggested by Andrew Morton: This is a pet peeve of mine. Any time there's a long list of items (header file inclusions, kconfig entries, array initalisers, etc) and someone wants to add a new item, they *always* go and stick it at the end of the list. Guys, don't do this. Either put the new item into a randomly-chosen position or, probably better, alphanumerically sort the list. lets sort all our select statements alphanumerically. This commit was created by the following perl: while (<>) { while (/\\\s*$/) { $_ .= <>; } undef %selects if /^\s*config\s+/; if (/^\s+select\s+(\w+).*/) { if (defined($selects{$1})) { if ($selects{$1} eq $_) { print STDERR "Warning: removing duplicated $1 entry\n"; } else { print STDERR "Error: $1 differently selected\n". "\tOld: $selects{$1}\n". "\tNew: $_\n"; exit 1; } } $selects{$1} = $_; next; } if (%selects and (/^\s*$/ or /^\s+help/ or /^\s+---help---/ or /^endif/ or /^endchoice/)) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } undef %selects; } print; } if (%selects) { foreach $k (sort (keys %selects)) { print "$selects{$k}"; } } It found two duplicates: Warning: removing duplicated S5P_SETUP_MIPIPHY entry Warning: removing duplicated HARDIRQS_SW_RESEND entry and they are identical duplicates, hence the shrinkage in the diffstat of two lines. We have four testers reporting success of this change (Tony, Stephen, Linus and Sekhar.) Acked-by: Jason Cooper <jason@lakedaemon.net> Acked-by: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com> Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> Acked-by: Sekhar Nori <nsekhar@ti.com> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
2012-10-06 16:12:25 +00:00
select SOC_AT91SAM9
help
Select this if you are using Atmel's AT91SAM9N12 SoC.
# ----------------------------------------------------------
source arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig.non_dt
endif # SOC_SAM_V4_V5
comment "Generic Board Type"
config MACH_AT91RM9200_DT
bool "Atmel AT91RM9200 Evaluation Kits with device-tree support"
depends on SOC_AT91RM9200
select USE_OF
help
Select this if you want to experiment device-tree with
an Atmel RM9200 Evaluation Kit.
config MACH_AT91SAM9_DT
bool "Atmel AT91SAM Evaluation Kits with device-tree support"
depends on SOC_AT91SAM9
select USE_OF
help
Select this if you want to experiment device-tree with
an Atmel Evaluation Kit.
config MACH_SAMA5_DT
bool "Atmel SAMA5 Evaluation Kits with device-tree support"
depends on SOC_SAMA5
select USE_OF
help
Select this if you want to experiment device-tree with
an Atmel Evaluation Kit.
# ----------------------------------------------------------
comment "AT91 Feature Selections"
config AT91_PROGRAMMABLE_CLOCKS
bool "Programmable Clocks"
help
Select this if you need to program one or more of the PCK0..PCK3
programmable clock outputs.
config AT91_SLOW_CLOCK
bool "Suspend-to-RAM disables main oscillator"
depends on SUSPEND
help
Select this if you want Suspend-to-RAM to save the most power
possible (without powering off the CPU) by disabling the PLLs
and main oscillator so that only the 32 KiHz clock is available.
When only that slow-clock is available, some peripherals lose
functionality. Many can't issue wakeup events unless faster
clocks are available. Some lose their operating state and
need to be completely re-initialized.
config AT91_TIMER_HZ
int "Kernel HZ (jiffies per second)"
range 32 1024
depends on ARCH_AT91
default "128" if ARCH_AT91RM9200
default "100"
help
On AT91rm9200 chips where you're using a system clock derived
from the 32768 Hz hardware clock, this tick rate should divide
it exactly: use a power-of-two value, such as 128 or 256, to
reduce timing errors caused by rounding.
On AT91sam926x chips, or otherwise when using a higher precision
system clock (of at least several MHz), rounding is less of a
problem so it can be safer to use a decimal values like 100.
endmenu
endif