Re: [PATCH 03/03] ARM: shmobile: Consolidate Legacy GPIOLIB Kconfig bits

[Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>]

On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 06:28:31PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> Hi Geert,
> 
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > Hi Magnus,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Consolidate ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB under ARCH_SHMOBILE_LEGACY
> >> so it can be shared by the legacy ARM mach-shmobile code.
> >
> > Given
> >   - all legacy support for shmobile boards except ape6evm, koelsch, and lager
> >     select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB,
> >   - the ape6evm, koelsch, and lager defconfigs have CONFIG_GPIOLIB=y,
> > shouldn't we just upgrade from ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB
> > to ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB?
> 
> Sure, that is fine with me. I'm not sure if there is much point in
> separating OPTIONAL and REQUIRE anymore.
> 
> Historically in case of legacy support code we let the SoC code
> provide ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB and then allow each board to
> override with ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB in case they require PFC or GPIO.
> The idea was that boards that need to configure the pin controller
> would select REQUIRE, but this was done ages before PINCTRL existed
> and we relied on GPIO for pin mux configuration. Boards that only
> relied on pin controller settings from the boot loader would rely on
> OPTIONAL (by not selecting REQUIRE) which would allow the user to not
> compile in GPIO support.
> 
> These days we use PINCTRL for pin mux configuration anyway, so with
> that in mind perhaps there is not much point with these GPIO bits..

I am holding off on this patch until some consensus is reached
on it or an alternate patch is posted.