From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: QCOM: Enable ARM_AMBA option for Qcom SOCS.
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 15:56:30 +0100
Message-ID: <5374D59E.2010502@linaro.org>
References: <1400148535-30772-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <4FB5A6A0-B4C5-4E97-AD7D-8049CFA60393@codeaurora.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252;
	format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4FB5A6A0-B4C5-4E97-AD7D-8049CFA60393@codeaurora.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Kumar Gala <galak@codeaurora.org>
Cc: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>, Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org


Hi Kumar,
On 15/05/14 15:31, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I=92d rather have the driver have the select of ARM_AMBA and not the =
core support.  We clearly don=92t need to build ARM_AMBA in to function=
=2E

Shouldn=92t driver depend on it rather than selecting it?

Suggested approach will end up changing the way its done on other SOCs,
Currently all the SOCs select ARM_AMBA at there machine level Kconfig=20
rather than each individual driver selecting it.

Am open to do it either way but doing it the way it exists is the=20
something more acceptable I thought.


thanks,
srini