From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 11:49:43 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2 1/2] ARM: mx5: introduce SOC_IMX51 In-Reply-To: References: <1290724946-23516-1-git-send-email-user@fabio-desktop> <20101126113639.GD27637@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20101208104943.GM18244@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 06:32:01PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: > Hi Fabio and Uwe, > > Why do we have both ARCH_MX51 and SOC_IMX51? It looks redundant. > Will ARCH_MX51 be removed after all other places are replace by SOC_IMX51? yes > I don't need to define ARCH_MX50 any more, correct? The motivation for SOC_... is described in arch/arm/mach-mx3/Kconfig[1]. So if you have multi-soc kernels in mind when using SOC_IMX50 not adding ARCH_MX50 is fine (and prefered). Best regards UWe [1] http://git.pengutronix.de/?p=imx/linux-2.6.git;a=blob;f=arch/arm/mach-mx3/Kconfig;hb=imx-for-2.6.38 -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |