From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 18:12:31 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] arm64: Add Kconfig option for Samsung GH7 SoC family In-Reply-To: References: <1392100183-30930-1-git-send-email-kgene.kim@samsung.com> <1392100183-30930-3-git-send-email-kgene.kim@samsung.com> <20140212103824.GF29702@arm.com> Message-ID: <1540B9A3-2485-4149-81DD-7D86A532E5D4@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 12 Feb 2014, at 16:25, Kumar Gala wrote: > On Feb 12, 2014, at 4:38 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:39:27PM +0000, Olof Johansson wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>>> This patch adds support for Samsung GH7 SoC in arm64/Kconfig. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim >>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas >>> >>> The overhead of building one more device tree isn't very large, and I >>> don't see any other need to have a Kconfig entry per SoC at this time. >>> It's of course up to Catalin, but you might just want to always >>> compile all dts files instead. >> >> For arm64, I thought of getting rid of ARCH_* Kconfig entries entirely, >> only that I haven't heard any strong opinion either way (in which case >> I'll do it, with a risk of single Image getting bigger and bigger and >> people needing smaller Image can trim their .config). > > One reason to keep around ARCH_* is for drivers shared between arm and arm64 that depend on it. We already converted some of them (those depending on ARCH_VEXPRESS) to just depend on ARM64. Ideally, at some point I?d like to see them as defaulting to modules but I don?t think we are there yet (we had some discussions at the last KS, I?m not sure anyone started looking into this).