From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 16:20:29 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 9/9] ARM: ux500: always select ABX500_CORE In-Reply-To: References: <1367528578-518090-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <1500795.gEuGziRZET@wuerfel> Message-ID: <2812721.61fsxKBgRj@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 03 May 2013 16:06:57 Linus Walleij wrote: > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday 03 May 2013 15:33:17 Linus Walleij wrote: > > >> I lean toward selecting AB3100 and REGULATOR_AB3100 > >> for the U300 actually. > > > > Should we still allow building them on other platforms then? > > Right now, these depend on the platforms that actually use > > the hardware, but in other places, we just allow everything to > > be built that compiles without errors. > > Not in my opinion but IIRC in 2008 or so some other > subsystem maintainer beat us up for not allowing it > to build on every other platform, and the rationale given > was that allowin this to build on e.g. x86_64 gives some > nice compile coverage. > > I don't know which argument wins I know that a certain other Linus frequently complains when ARM specific options show up on his x86 machine during "make oldconfig" ;-) One idea I had is to create a global CONFIG_SOC option that would hide all on-chip peripherals when building for a PC-like system. On ARM, we would always select CONFIG_SOC, except for a few special cases like ARCH_RPC, ARCH_FOOTBRIDGE and ARCH_SHARK. > > Is it theoretically possible to use the AB in combination with > > another (non-ST-Ericsson) digital baseband? > > Theoretically (it's just a bunch of regulators etc when all comes > around), but it won't happen since these components > are not sold separately. Right, I was specifically asking about the technical possibilities, not what people are likely to do. Arnd