From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: cavokz@gmail.com (Domenico Andreoli)
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 01:28:58 +0200
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/5] ARM: Broadcom: Unconditionally build
 arch/arm/mach-bcm
In-Reply-To: <20130726231108.GA10812@obsidianresearch.com>
References: <20130726145639.116237136@gmail.com>
 <20130726151223.045835540@gmail.com>
 <20130726152918.GL29916@titan.lakedaemon.net>
 <20130726215859.GA19469@glitch>
 <20130726231108.GA10812@obsidianresearch.com>
Message-ID: <20130726232858.GA6953@glitch>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 05:11:08PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:59:00PM +0200, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> 
> > In mach-bcm we (or I, it's not very clear to me) want to have support for
> > multiple SoCs.
> > 
> > In trying the approach
> > 
> > machine-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM)		+= bcm
> > machine-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM4760)		+= bcm
> > 
> > I got linker complains about multiple symbol definitiion in case both the
> > config options are selected.
> 
> You can't repeat the same dir. Maybe this?
> 
> bcm-machine-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM) := bmc
> bcm-machine-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM4760) := bmc
> machine-y += $(bcm-machine-y)

nice! I prefer this to the config option used only to descend the dir,
you never know how it is going to be abused.

Christian, would you agree in ditching ARCH_BROADCOM then?

Russel, is it ok?

thanks,
Domenico