From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: andre.przywara@arm.com (Andre Przywara)
Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 12:15:24 +0100
Subject: Reverting ARCH_SUNXI arm64 support(?)
In-Reply-To: <20160509090951.GC19763@arm.com>
References: <57304FF7.3080909@arm.com> <20160509090951.GC19763@arm.com>
Message-ID: <5730714C.7010608@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi,

On 09/05/16 10:09, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 09:53:11AM +0100, Andre Przywara wrote:
>> Hi Will, Catalin,
> 
> Hi Andre,
> 
>> Suzuki reported a build failure with certain (non-defconfig) .configs
>> due to the new ARCH_SUNXI support in 4.6-rc [1].
>> As unfortunately we couldn't agree on a solution and also the support
>> for the A64/Pine64 is partial in 4.6 anyway, can you please revert:
>> ce3dd55b99b151a90ac1701c6825f2ae2d49b54e ("arm64: Introduce Allwinner
>> SoC config option")
> 
> Given that we (Catalin and I) didn't commit that patch, it seems weird
> that we should be reverting it. Shouldn't this be handled in arm-soc or
> via the sunxi subtree?
> 
> We're also a week from the merge window, so it doesn't seem like a good
> time to be hacking at .config/kconfig-related issues.

I agree, that's why I was proposing taking Suzuki's first patch:

diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms
index efa77c1..521b1ec 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms
+++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms
@@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ menu "Platform selection"

 config ARCH_SUNXI
 	bool "Allwinner sunxi 64-bit SoC Family"
+	select GENERIC_IRQ_CHIP
 	help
 	  This enables support for Allwinner sunxi based SoCs like the A64.


This is what defconfig selects anyway and also the change would be
confined to this (new) config option.

Olof, Arnd: would it be an option to take this patch still?

Cheers,
Andre.