From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: yingjoe.chen@mediatek.com (Yingjoe Chen)
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 18:01:29 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/3] arm64: mediatek: Add config option for mt8173.
In-Reply-To: <2108883.zjHYNOn4mC@wuerfel>
References: <1422342836-27689-1-git-send-email-hongzhou.yang@mediatek.com>
 <20150225111107.GA29206@localhost> <1425436267.21342.39.camel@mtksdaap41>
 <2108883.zjHYNOn4mC@wuerfel>
Message-ID: <1425463289.21342.41.camel@mtksdaap41>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 10:53 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 March 2015 10:31:07 Yingjoe Chen wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Since we support devicetree, we don't need MACH_* to build a working
> > kernel. This is true even for our v7 soc. We intend to use it to reduce
> > numbers of drivers in product kernel binary.
> > Most drivers are shared among the same SoCs family, but some are not.
> > Currently for pinctrl driver, we are doing this so user don't need to
> > select them one by one:
> > 
> > config PINCTRL_MT8173
> >         def_bool MACH_MT8173
> >         select PINCTRL_MTK_COMMON
> > 
> > Alternatively, we could add these MACH_* to some other places, eg,
> > drivers/soc/mediatek. Or we don't add MACH_* at all, and have all
> > drivers export their own Kconfig option. User will need to select each
> > of them one-by-one.
> > 
> > What do you think?
> 
> I would rather see these as user-selectable options, which has the
> other benefit of giving compile-time coverage. For your example,
> I'd suggest doing
> 
> config PINCTRL_MT8173
>         bool "Mediatek MT8173 pin control"
> 	depends on ARCH_MEDIATEK || COMPILE_TEST
>         select PINCTRL_MTK_COMMON
> 	help
> 	   ... a useful description ...
> 

OK, I'll send a new patch to do this.
Thanks.

Joe.C