Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755126Ab3EHTdj (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 May 2013 15:33:39 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-f169.google.com ([209.85.212.169]:42799 "EHLO mail-wi0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753196Ab3EHTdh (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 May 2013 15:33:37 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [2620:0:1000:1b02:6e3b:e5ff:fe16:c028] In-Reply-To: References: <1368034349-15091-1-git-send-email-dianders@chromium.org> Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 12:33:34 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: exynos: Select PINCTRL_EXYNOS for exynos5 From: Olof Johansson To: Doug Anderson Cc: Kukjin Kim , Thomas Abraham , Simon Glass , Alim Akhtar , Russell King , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1700 Lines: 47 Hi, On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Doug Anderson wrote: > Olof, > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Olof Johansson wrote: >> Seems like this should be selected by the SoC (ARCH_EXYNOS5) instead >> of the board. Actually, I'm not sure we need the board Kconfig entry >> long-term; all boards will be dt-only. > > Good point. Hopefully someone at Samsung can work on removing the > board itself? If you'd like me to take this on then let me know and I > can put it on my list. Nothing stops you from doing that on your own. I tend to push back onto the maintainers to get them engaged in their own housekeeping, but anyone is free to :) > I'm happy to resubmit my patch under ARCH_EXYNOS5. I'll move the > exynos4 one at the same time. Great. > I'm going to make the assumption that PINCTRL_EXYNOS and > PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 can happily coexist. Certainly I've got both > defined in my tree right now and nothing blows up. I haven't tested > on 5440 but things ought to be handled by "compatible" checks, right? Yes, if they can't coexist then that's a bug. > I'll also assume that eventually someone will move PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 > into PINCTRL_EXYNOS. If PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 won't eventually move > under PINCTRL_EXYNOS then it makes less sense to define PINCTRL_EXYNOS > for all exynos parts. Yeah, it should -- this is just in transition since 5440 was first out of the gate with pinctrl. -Olof -- 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/