From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: kgene.kim@samsung.com (Kukjin Kim)
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 07:36:28 +0900
Subject: [PATCH v8 1/3] ARM: EXYNOS: initial board support for exynos5260
 SoC
In-Reply-To: <534E3AE7.10907@gmail.com>
References: <1397620738-14431-1-git-send-email-rahul.sharma@samsung.com>
 <1397620738-14431-2-git-send-email-rahul.sharma@samsung.com>
 <534E3803.5010404@gmail.com>
 <CAK9yfHztqGWhUJ=PNc7L-epu48PkEM6=v6JFDZ1n52NBeOUB8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <534E3AE7.10907@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00eb01cf5e7b$4eb9edf0$ec2dc9d0$@samsung.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Tomasz Figa wrote:
> 
> On 16.04.2014 10:08, Sachin Kamat wrote:
> > Hi Tomasz,
> >
> > On 16 April 2014 13:27, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Rahul,
> >>
> >>
> >> On 16.04.2014 05:58, Rahul Sharma wrote:
> >>>
> >>> From: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com>
> >>>
> >>> This patch add basic arch side support for exynos5260 SoC.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Rahul Sharma <rahul.sharma@samsung.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>    arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig |    5 +++++
> >>>    1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-
> exynos/Kconfig
> >>> index fc8bf18..bf4ed87 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
> >>> @@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ config SOC_EXYNOS5250
> >>>          help
> >>>            Enable EXYNOS5250 SoC support
> >>>
> >>> +config SOC_EXYNOS5260
> >>> +       bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5260"
> >>> +       default y
> >>> +       depends on ARCH_EXYNOS5
> >>> +
> >>>    config SOC_EXYNOS5420
> >>>          bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5420"
> >>>          default y
> >>>
> >>
> >> Is this patch necessary now? After Sachin's consolidation series there
> are
> >> no per SoC entries anymore.
> >
> > Kukjin still wanted individual SoCs to be selectable. Please refer [1].
> >
> > [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg27040.html
> 
> I don't think any valid reason was presented there. Features in code
> should not be selected using #ifdef CONFIG_ anymore, so I don't really
> see any reason to not proceed with this consolidation. Olof, Arnd?
> 
Hi,

Yeah, in this case, nothing happened with adding SOC_EXYNOS5260. So I don't have any idea why this is required.

- Kukjin