From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tony@atomide.com (Tony Lindgren) Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 12:35:01 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 02/13] ARM: OMAP5: Add minimal support for OMAP5430 SOC In-Reply-To: <20120507191847.GJ5088@atomide.com> References: <1336029982-31898-1-git-send-email-r.sricharan@ti.com> <1336029982-31898-3-git-send-email-r.sricharan@ti.com> <20120504223933.GX5613@atomide.com> <20120507191847.GJ5088@atomide.com> Message-ID: <20120507193500.GK5088@atomide.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org * Tony Lindgren [120507 12:22]: > * Paul Walmsley [120507 12:11]: > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, 4 May 2012, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > > > > How about we add CONFIG_SOC_OMAP3PLUS in the clean-up series? > > > Then this becomes just: > > > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SOC_OMAP3PLUS > > > > We might want to consider having separate CONFIG_SOC_* values for each > > SoC. So rather than CONFIG_SOC_OMAP3PLUS, we'd have CONFIG_SOC_OMAP3430, > > CONFIG_SOC_OMAP3630, etc. > > Hmm but this would be in addition to the SOC specific options. The goal > is to cut down the ifdeffery needed all over the place to add new SoCs, > see the experimental patch I posted: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-omap at vger.kernel.org/msg67938.html Of course we could make this finer grained based on features like SOC_HAS_XYZ or SOC_HAS_OMAP3PLUS_PRMXYZBITS if you have some grouping like that in mind. Regards, Tony