From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: eric@eukrea.com (Eric =?ISO-8859-1?B?QuluYXJk?=)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 10:36:16 +0200
Subject: [PATCHv6][ 3/7] ARM: imx{25,27} DT: Permit the selection of the
 imxfb framebuffer driver.
In-Reply-To: <20131024083143.GB13614@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
References: <1382601665-6830-1-git-send-email-denis@eukrea.com>
 <1382601665-6830-3-git-send-email-denis@eukrea.com>
 <20131024081531.GA13614@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
 <20131024102011.610e5d8b@e6520eb>
 <20131024083143.GB13614@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
Message-ID: <20131024103616.0b28b922@e6520eb>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi Shawn,

Le Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:31:45 +0800,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> a ?crit :

> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:20:11AM +0200, Eric B?nard wrote:
> > Hi Shawn,
> > 
> > Le Thu, 24 Oct 2013 16:15:34 +0800,
> > Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@linaro.org> a ?crit :
> > > >  config FB_IMX
> > > >  	tristate "Freescale i.MX1/21/25/27 LCD support"
> > > > -	depends on FB && IMX_HAVE_PLATFORM_IMX_FB
> > > > +	depends on FB && HAVE_IMX_FB
> > > 
> > > Or simply have it depend on ARCH_MXC?
> > > 
> > > 	depends on FB && ARCH_MXC
> > > 
> > but not all MXC have IMX_FB : isn't that a problem ?
> 
> Is it really a problem that you see this option when you configure an
> imx51 kernel?  The prompt clearly tells you do not need this option for
> an imx51 kernel.  Or will it cause any real problem even if you select
> it for an imx51 kernel, except you build in a driver which will never be
> instantiated?  I've seen drivers even start drop ARCH_* dependency to
> get a better randconfig build test coverage.
> 
not really a problem for me. If the policy is not to narrow the choices
to only the SOC which have the peripheral then we follow it and take
your ARCH_MXC approach which is far simpler.

Thanks,
Eric