From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: agraf@suse.de (Alexander Graf) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 00:25:22 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] arm64: amd-seattle: Adding device tree for AMD Seattle platform In-Reply-To: <544E56DB.7020305@amd.com> References: <1414153221-13104-1-git-send-email-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com> <544C2D67.8000405@suse.de> <544CEC5B.4020104@suse.de> <544E56DB.7020305@amd.com> Message-ID: <544ED462.20601@suse.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 27.10.14 15:29, Suravee Suthikulanit wrote: > On 10/26/2014 9:08 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> This option doesn't exist in upstream kernels, does it? Why not just >>>> >>make it dtb-y? >>> > >>> >CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE is being added one hunk above.:) >> Oops:). >> >> I'm not convinced we need a config option just for the sake of >> compiling a device tree though. >> >> >> Alex >> > > Eventually, we would add other device driver selections when > CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE=y. At this point, those drivers are still not ready. Could you please give me some examples of drivers that would depend on CONFIG_ARCH_SEATTLE? I like the current way things work without the need for such an option, where everything's implemented purely as drivers you can opt in our out of. You don't have a CONFIG_ARCH_SB7XX on x86 either, right? ;) Alex