From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kukjin Kim Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 1/1] ARM: EXYNOS: Update CONFIG_ARCH_NR_GPIO for Exynos Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:00:23 +0900 Message-ID: <0eb101ce8865$60f1d920$22d58b60$@org> References: <1374655405-22998-1-git-send-email-sachin.kamat@linaro.org> <51EFB023.6090804@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout1.samsung.com ([203.254.224.24]:59277 "EHLO mailout1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751276Ab3GXMAZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 08:00:25 -0400 Received: from epcpsbgr5.samsung.com (u145.gpu120.samsung.co.kr [203.254.230.145]) by mailout1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01 (7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTP id <0MQF003NDW0L6520@mailout1.samsung.com> for linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:00:24 +0900 (KST) In-reply-to: Content-language: ko Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: 'Kukjin Kim' , 'Sachin Kamat' , 'Sylwester Nawrocki' Cc: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, patches@linaro.org, 'Tomasz Figa' Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Sachin Kamat wrote: > > > > Hi Sylwester, > > > Hi all, > > [...] > > > >> @@ -1590,8 +1590,7 @@ config ARM_PSCI > > >> config ARCH_NR_GPIO > > >> int > > >> default 1024 if ARCH_SHMOBILE || ARCH_TEGRA > > >> - default 512 if SOC_OMAP5 > > >> - default 512 if ARCH_KEYSTONE > > >> + default 512 if ARCH_EXYNOS || ARCH_KEYSTONE || SOC_OMAP5 > > > > > > Sorry, 512 seems a bit too generous to me. Also I would rather > > > leave each SOC/ARCH on a separate line. > > > > Even I had left it that way earlier. However Kukjin suggested the > > above (single line). > > I feel it is more of individual preference. > > > I know it is quite big but I think if we want to use the large number, I'd > preferred to use enough the large number so that we don't need to update > it soon. If so, multiple line is useless... > > Note, according to git log, for omap5, 256 is the accurately right number. > > > > > > > Almost half of those 512 entries would have been unused in most > > > cases. How about, e.g. 352 ? If anyone finds this value too low > > > they could always submit a patch like this one. IMHO with 352 or > > > 392 there would be sufficient margin. > > > Hmm... > > > I agree. Again, I do not have any reservations here. I just went with > > maintainer's choice which was a superset of your and Tomasz's > > suggestions :) > > If you have another opinion on this, please let me know before sending fixes for 3.11 probably tomorrow morning in my time. Thanks, Kukjin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: kgene@kernel.org (Kukjin Kim) Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:00:23 +0900 Subject: [PATCH v4 1/1] ARM: EXYNOS: Update CONFIG_ARCH_NR_GPIO for Exynos References: <1374655405-22998-1-git-send-email-sachin.kamat@linaro.org> <51EFB023.6090804@samsung.com> Message-ID: <0eb101ce8865$60f1d920$22d58b60$@org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Sachin Kamat wrote: > > > > Hi Sylwester, > > > Hi all, > > [...] > > > >> @@ -1590,8 +1590,7 @@ config ARM_PSCI > > >> config ARCH_NR_GPIO > > >> int > > >> default 1024 if ARCH_SHMOBILE || ARCH_TEGRA > > >> - default 512 if SOC_OMAP5 > > >> - default 512 if ARCH_KEYSTONE > > >> + default 512 if ARCH_EXYNOS || ARCH_KEYSTONE || SOC_OMAP5 > > > > > > Sorry, 512 seems a bit too generous to me. Also I would rather > > > leave each SOC/ARCH on a separate line. > > > > Even I had left it that way earlier. However Kukjin suggested the > > above (single line). > > I feel it is more of individual preference. > > > I know it is quite big but I think if we want to use the large number, I'd > preferred to use enough the large number so that we don't need to update > it soon. If so, multiple line is useless... > > Note, according to git log, for omap5, 256 is the accurately right number. > > > > > > > Almost half of those 512 entries would have been unused in most > > > cases. How about, e.g. 352 ? If anyone finds this value too low > > > they could always submit a patch like this one. IMHO with 352 or > > > 392 there would be sufficient margin. > > > Hmm... > > > I agree. Again, I do not have any reservations here. I just went with > > maintainer's choice which was a superset of your and Tomasz's > > suggestions :) > > If you have another opinion on this, please let me know before sending fixes for 3.11 probably tomorrow morning in my time. Thanks, Kukjin