Message-ID: <0cee46b0-445c-6e9f-3bc3-50a107cbaf4a@linaro.org>
Date:   Mon, 23 Jan 2023 13:45:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.7.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: qcom: restrict drivers per ARM/ARM64
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
        Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
        Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20230123094925.54824-1-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
 <20230123094925.54824-2-krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
 <9cbbb9c3-f645-0066-a505-35cc7ae087bc@linaro.org>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
In-Reply-To: <9cbbb9c3-f645-0066-a505-35cc7ae087bc@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 23/01/2023 13:31, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23.01.2023 10:49, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> There is no point to allow selecting pin-controller drivers for Qualcomm
>> ARMv7 SoCs when building ARM64 kernel, and vice versa.  This makes
>> kernel configuration more difficult as many do not remember the Qualcomm
>> SoCs model names/numbers.  There won't be a single image for ARMv7 and
>> ARMv8/9 SoCs, so no features/options are lost.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org>
>> ---
> Not sure about the newest of the newest SoCs with Cortex-X etc,
> but older ones, particularly including 8916 (as some vendors
> in their infinite wisdom decided that shipping a 32 bit tz is
> a good idea) having ARM || ARM64 would make sense.

Why? ARM || ARM64 is implied by ARCH_QCOM, so what would it give?

Best regards,
Krzysztof