From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: k.kozlowski@samsung.com (Krzysztof Kozlowski) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2015 18:41:16 +0900 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] clk: samsung: Don't build ARMv8 clock drivers on ARMv7 In-Reply-To: References: <1447637775-9887-1-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <1447637775-9887-2-git-send-email-k.kozlowski@samsung.com> <564D5552.4070806@samsung.com> Message-ID: <564D993C.4090104@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org W dniu 19.11.2015 o 18:16, Tomasz Figa pisze: > 2015-11-19 13:51 GMT+09:00 Krzysztof Kozlowski : >> On 19.11.2015 13:18, Tomasz Figa wrote: >>> However, I don't think we can disable compilation of particular 64-bit >>> SoCs, so maybe there isn't much sense in splitting their clock drivers >>> into separate symbols? >> >> To me it does not really matter. Indeed as you said one cannot disable >> building of one particular Exynos SoCs. >> >> However we could still want not build some parts of such SoCs (like >> clock, pinctrl etc). I don't see much benefit for such case except when >> someone would like to drastically reduce the size of kernel image (for >> whatever reasons he has.). > > Can we really build a kernel that support selected Exynos SoC without > its clock driver? Actually I don't think we even allow deselecting > clock drivers currently, because they are not visible in menuconfig. > Unless there is a clear goal to separate ARCH level Kconfig symbol for > particular ARM64-based Exynos SoCs, I don't think it makes any sense > to keep the clock-related symbols separate. That is reasonable and very convincing. I'll wait for Sylwester reply before re-spinning. BR, Krzysztof