[PATCH v5 1/5] ARM: mediatek: Add config options for mediatek SoCs.

[pebolle@tiscali.nl (Paul Bolle)]

Joe,

On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 13:54 +0100, Matthias Brugger wrote:
> 2015-01-21 6:28 GMT+01:00 Hongzhou Yang <hongzhou.yang@mediatek.com>:
> > From: Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@mediatek.com>
> >
> > The upcoming MTK pinctrl driver have a big pin table for each SoC
> > and we don't want to bloat the kernel binary if we don't need it.
> > Add config options so we can build for one SoC only.
> >
> > Acked-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Yingjoe Chen <yingjoe.chen@mediatek.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Hongzhou Yang <hongzhou.yang@mediatek.com>
> 
> Applied to v3.20-next/soc

This became commit ad8a221e1f49 ("ARM: mediatek: Add config options for
mediatek SoCs.") in today's linux-next (ie, next-20150127). I noticed
because a script I use to check linux-next spotted a problem with it.

> > ---
> >  arch/arm/mach-mediatek/Kconfig | 22 +++++++++++++++++++++-
> >  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-mediatek/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-mediatek/Kconfig
> > index f73f588..f7e463c 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-mediatek/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-mediatek/Kconfig
> > @@ -1,6 +1,26 @@
> > -config ARCH_MEDIATEK
> > +menuconfig ARCH_MEDIATEK
> >         bool "Mediatek MT65xx & MT81xx SoC" if ARCH_MULTI_V7
> >         select ARM_GIC
> >         select MTK_TIMER
> >         help
> >           Support for Mediatek MT65xx & MT81xx SoCs
> > +
> > +if ARCH_MEDIATEK
> > +
> > +config MACH_MT6589
> > +       bool "MediaTek MT6589 SoCs support"
> > +       default ARCH_MEDIATEK
> > +
> > +config MACH_MT6592
> > +       bool "MediaTek MT6592 SoCs support"
> > +       default ARCH_MEDIATEK
> > +
> > +config MACH_MT8127
> > +       bool "MediaTek MT8127 SoCs support"
> > +       default ARCH_MEDIATEK
> > +
> > +config MACH_MT8135
> > +       bool "MediaTek MT8135 SoCs support"
> > +       default ARCH_MEDIATEK
> > +
> > +endif

None of these four new MACH_MT* Kconfig symbols are currently used in
linux-next. I assume that patches that actually use them (either as a
Kconfig symbol or as a CONFIG_* macro) are still pending. Is that
correct?

Thanks,


Paul Bolle