From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mkl@pengutronix.de (Marc Kleine-Budde) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:57:10 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] can: Kconfig: CAN_AT91 depends on ARCH_AT91 In-Reply-To: <20130311092419.GB2572@ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> References: <1362763842-14924-1-git-send-email-ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> <1362763842-14924-4-git-send-email-ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> <513A2396.4080508@pengutronix.de> <20130311092419.GB2572@ludovic.desroches@atmel.com> Message-ID: <513DAA76.6040803@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/11/2013 10:24 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote: > On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 06:44:54PM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: >> On 03/08/2013 06:30 PM, ludovic.desroches at atmel.com wrote: >>> From: Ludovic Desroches >>> >>> SAMA5D3 devices also embed CAN feature. Moreover if we want to produce a single >>> kernel image (at least for Atmel devices) it is not useful to be too >>> restrictive. >> >> If it compiles on other ARMs aswell we can make it depend on ARCH_ARM. >> > I was thinking about it but I am wondering if it makes sense. Should we have a > non atmel device with atmel can? I don't know if atmels sells the IP core separately, but ARM Linux is going towards a multi ARCH kernel anyways. So the can core should compile on non atmel and/or multi arch kernels. > I have no position about this point, if you think it's better to make > it depending onto ARCH_ARM, I'll change it if there is no compilation > issue. Please make it so. regards, Marc -- Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de | -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 263 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: