From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/38] Thirty eight patches big Exynos cleanup Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:29:09 +0200 Message-ID: <201306182029.09790.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1371486863-12398-1-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com> <51C09E3C.5050108@samsung.com> <44244927.ekNqhkrd4q@flatron> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.8]:56393 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933030Ab3FRS3T (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2013 14:29:19 -0400 In-Reply-To: <44244927.ekNqhkrd4q@flatron> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Tomasz Figa Cc: Kukjin Kim , Tomasz Figa , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, 'Olof Johansson' , 'Marek Szyprowski' , 'Sylwester Nawrocki' , 'Thomas Abraham' On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote: > OK. Looking forward to it. > > Btw. This leaves us with two things broken: > - sdhci-s3c checks for defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4212), but does not check > for defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4412), > - exynos-thermal checks for defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4412), but does not > check for defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4212). > > I think this must be fixed, because selecting only Exynos4212 in kernel > config you end up without exynos-thermal, while selecting only Exynos4412 > breaks sdhci-s3c. I wonder what we actually gain by having all these fine-grained checks in the kernel. Why not just reduce the compile-time checks to just EXYNOS4 and EXYNOS5? The drivers can easily implement code for all variants using run-time checks, but I think it would be easier if building an EXYNOS4 kernel would just run on all EXYNOS4 machines. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 20:29:09 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 00/38] Thirty eight patches big Exynos cleanup In-Reply-To: <44244927.ekNqhkrd4q@flatron> References: <1371486863-12398-1-git-send-email-t.figa@samsung.com> <51C09E3C.5050108@samsung.com> <44244927.ekNqhkrd4q@flatron> Message-ID: <201306182029.09790.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tuesday 18 June 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote: > OK. Looking forward to it. > > Btw. This leaves us with two things broken: > - sdhci-s3c checks for defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4212), but does not check > for defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4412), > - exynos-thermal checks for defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4412), but does not > check for defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4212). > > I think this must be fixed, because selecting only Exynos4212 in kernel > config you end up without exynos-thermal, while selecting only Exynos4412 > breaks sdhci-s3c. I wonder what we actually gain by having all these fine-grained checks in the kernel. Why not just reduce the compile-time checks to just EXYNOS4 and EXYNOS5? The drivers can easily implement code for all variants using run-time checks, but I think it would be easier if building an EXYNOS4 kernel would just run on all EXYNOS4 machines. Arnd