From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org (Manivannan Sadhasivam)
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 15:24:00 +0530
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] clk: owl: add clock driver for Actions S900 SoC
In-Reply-To: <25a2e233-f565-8baa-17e2-9c867bbbe9d0@suse.de>
References: <1509479663-8985-1-git-send-email-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
 <1509479663-8985-3-git-send-email-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
 <7c87aee4-dde4-ab3d-06b0-75f3686ab5dd@suse.de>
 <20171104091949.GB14705@linaro.org>
 <25a2e233-f565-8baa-17e2-9c867bbbe9d0@suse.de>
Message-ID: <20171104095400.GD18680@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 05:30:36PM +0800, Andreas F?rber wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Am 04.11.2017 um 17:19 schrieb Manivannan Sadhasivam:
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/Makefile b/drivers/clk/Makefile
> >>> index c99f363..821c1e1 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/clk/Makefile
> >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/Makefile
> >>> @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ endif
> >>>  obj-y					+= mvebu/
> >>>  obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXS)			+= mxs/
> >>>  obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK_NXP)		+= nxp/
> >>> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS)		+= owl/
> >>>  obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_PISTACHIO)		+= pistachio/
> >>>  obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK_PXA)		+= pxa/
> >>>  obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK_QCOM)		+= qcom/
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/owl/Makefile b/drivers/clk/owl/Makefile
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 0000000..dbba0af
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/owl/Makefile
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> >>> +obj-y				+= clk.o clk-pll.o clk-factor.o
> >>> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS)	+= clk-s900.o
> >>
> >> $(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS) is superfluous here.
> >>
> > Okay. Since, we haven't added ARCH_ACTIONS to defconfig yet I intentionally
> > made this conditional compilation.
> > 
> > Would like a suggestion from you on this!
> 
> My point was that the ../Makefile already uses $(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS),
> so $(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS) can never be n here.
>
Ah. Missed that :-) 
> Instead you should probably either use $(CONFIG_ARM64) or better some
> new Kconfig option (CONFIG_CLK_OWL_S900?), so that we don't
> unnecessarily compile S900 on 32-bit arm and S500 on arm64.
> 
CONFIG_CLK_OWL_S900 seems to be beter
> Another point: What about S700? Does it need to duplicate clk-s900.c or
> can we share any code between the two?
> 
Haven't looked at that yet. Will let you know.

Thanks,
Mani
> Cheers,
> Andreas
> 
> -- 
> SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N?rnberg, Germany
> GF: Felix Imend?rffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
> HRB 21284 (AG N?rnberg)