From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: olof@lixom.net (Olof Johansson) Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 09:13:06 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: Add ARCH_HAS_L2X0 and make CACHE_L2X0 config depend on that In-Reply-To: References: <1276272211-13065-1-git-send-email-olof@lixom.net> <1276279087.31800.6.camel@c-dwalke-linux.qualcomm.com> <20100613051625.GA7248@trinity.fluff.org> <20100614145956.GA29355@lixom.net> Message-ID: <20100616141306.GA21030@lixom.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 11:43:29AM +0800, Eric Miao wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 06:16:26AM +0100, Ben Dooks wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:58:07AM -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > >> > > >> > I made a similar change not too long ago, but Russell wanted the define > >> > to be HAVE_CACHE_L2X0 .. > >> > >> possibly, I was thinking ARM_L2X0 would also be an option, since if I > >> remeber correctly it is selecting the driver not the availability of > >> it. > > > > Yeah, there are lots of different possible names. :) > > > > Let's just go with the one Russell preferred and not worry too much > > about it. There's some presendence to using HAVE_.* already. > > > > Sometimes I am thinking that maybe ARCH_HAS_* has some benefits: > > HAVE_* for those kernel-wide and general capabilities > ARCH_HAS_* for those ARM machine-class specific capabilities? > > So to make things a bit more clear? If ARCH_HAS_* is widely adopted > on architectures other than ARM, maybe we can then switch that name > to HAVE_*? We're nowhere near depleting the HAVE_.* namespace, it's quite sparsely used at the moment. I don't see a need to overengineer things here. A bike shed of any color will do, etc. -Olof