From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kukjin Kim Subject: RE: [PATCH Resend 1/3] ARM: EXYNOS: Consolidate Kconfig entries Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:05:10 +0900 Message-ID: <031401cf4402$59cdda00$0d698e00$@samsung.com> References: <1395224705-2935-1-git-send-email-sachin.kamat@linaro.org> <02f701cf4400$e561e2c0$b025a840$@samsung.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-reply-to: <02f701cf4400$e561e2c0$b025a840$@samsung.com> Content-language: ko Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: 'Sachin Kamat' , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org Cc: devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, mark.rutland@arm.com List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Sachin Kamat wrote: > > > > Instead of repeating the Kconfig entries for every SoC, move them under > > ARCH_EXYNOS4 and 5 and move the entries common to both 4 and 5 under > > ARCH_EXYNOS. Also, since the individual SoCs do not have any specific > > machine/platform code, keep them as boolean symbols instead of user > > selectable and select them from Exynos4 and 5 config symbols. Individual > > SoC symbols can be removed eventually once the driver Kconfig dependencies > > on these symbols are removed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat > > Acked-by: Tomasz Figa > > --- > > This is a resend of the series rebased on top of latest linux-next and > > Tomasz Figa's PM consolidation series 1 and 2. > > --- > > arch/arm/Kconfig | 10 +++++ > > arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 89 > +++++++++++--------------------------- > > ---- > > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) > > > Hmm...I'm still thinking whether we don't need to select some specific > Exynos SoCs. Because actually we're implement/develop some features based on > mainline kernel and sometimes the features are not valid on all of Exynos4 > or Exynos5. Even though they are not in mainline, for mass product it's true > that Samsung needs to do it. It's another thing we have a plan for them or > not. Mainline upstreaming plan. > > So in my opinion, basically consolidation something is usually good but it's > not always good so we need to provide a way to use one of both. > - Kukjin