From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: laurent.pinchart@ideasonboard.com (Laurent Pinchart) Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 14:22:28 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 00/19] Enable various Renesas drivers on all ARM platforms In-Reply-To: <1383051980.29619.33.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> References: <1383004027-25036-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> <1383051980.29619.33.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> Message-ID: <1844190.ApyucSZX8W@avalon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Artem, On Tuesday 29 October 2013 15:06:20 Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 10:12 +0100, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Oct 2013, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > This patch series, based on v3.12-rc7, prepares various Renesas drivers > > > for migration to multiplatform kernels by enabling their compilation or > > > otherwise fixing them on all ARM platforms. The patches are pretty > > > straightforward and are described in their commit message. > > > > > > I'd like to get all these patches merged in v3.14. As they will need to > > > go through their respective subsystems' trees, I would appreciate if all > > > maintainers involved could notify me when they merge patches from this > > > series in their tree to help me tracking the merge status. I don't plan > > > to send pull requests individually for these patches, and I will repost > > > patches individually if changes are requested during review. > > > > > > If you believe the issue should be solved in a different way (for > > > instance by removing the architecture dependency completely) please > > > reply to the cover letter to let other maintainers chime in. > > > > Exactly this was my doubt. If we let these drivers build on all ARM > > platforms... Maybe we should just let them build everywhere? Unless there > > are real ARM dependencies. Maybe you could try to remove the restriction > > and try to build them all on x86? > > If they have never been used on anything but ARM, why would you remove > ARM dependencies? Just for the sake of compile-checking? > > Also, if ARM dependency is ever removed, all these should become 'n' by > default in the Kconfig, in order to make sure they do not slip into > defconfigs of different architectures. The idea is that, if ARM is neither a compile-time nor runtime dependency, it should not be specified in Kconfig. However, if the IP core has never been used on anything but SuperH and ARM, I don't think clobbering the config process with drivers that can't be used on the target architecture would be a really good idea, especially now that we have a COMPILE_TEST Kconfig option. My preference does goes to SUPERH || ARM || COMPILE_TEST over no dependency at all. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart