From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mika Westerberg Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] pinctrl: intel: on enable on x86 arches and COMPILE_TEST Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2015 14:37:23 +0200 Message-ID: <20151228123723.GV1758@lahna.fi.intel.com> References: <1451218972-22156-1-git-send-email-pbrobinson@gmail.com> <1451218972-22156-2-git-send-email-pbrobinson@gmail.com> <20151228120010.GU1758@lahna.fi.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:50872 "EHLO mga04.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751845AbbL1Mh1 (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Dec 2015 07:37:27 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Robinson Cc: Linus Walleij , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Heikki Krogerus On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 12:13:32PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Mika Westerberg > wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 27, 2015 at 12:22:51PM +0000, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> If you select CONFIG_PINCTR for another unrelated architecture > >> you need to set all the Intel pinctrl options even though they're not > >> required. Mask them if not required. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Peter Robinson > >> --- > >> drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig | 4 ++++ > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig > >> index 4d2efad..68fa13a 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig > >> +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig > >> @@ -2,6 +2,8 @@ > >> # Intel pin control drivers > >> # > >> > >> +if X86_GENERIC || COMPILE_TEST > >> + > >> config PINCTRL_BAYTRAIL > >> bool "Intel Baytrail GPIO pin control" > >> depends on GPIOLIB && ACPI > > > > All of them already depend on CONFIG_ACPI so if your unrelated > > architecture does not provide that then you should not see any of these. > > ACPI is available on arm64 and there's patches around for ARM, none of > which would support the intel hardware, hence the patch. I see. Then I suggest you use "if X86 || COMPILE_TEST" instead of X86_GENERIC because the latter does not even cover 64-bit CPUs (and is more about optimizing for generic 32-bit CPUs than selecting proper CPU architecture).