From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy Shevchenko Subject: Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: intel: wrap Intel pin control drivers in an architecture check Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 16:49:20 +0300 Message-ID: <1504014560.25945.145.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <20170704064947.10792-1-pbrobinson@gmail.com> <20170704095459.GB1250@kuha.fi.intel.com> <1499163673.22624.248.camel@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:63771 "EHLO mga07.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752218AbdH2NtY (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:49:24 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-gpio-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Robinson Cc: Heikki Krogerus , Linus Walleij , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Mika Westerberg On Wed, 2017-07-05 at 09:01 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Andy Shevchenko > wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-07-04 at 12:54 +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 07:49:47AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > > > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig > > > > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig > > > > @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@ > > > >  # > > > >  # Intel pin control drivers > > > >  # > > > > +if (X86 || COMPILE_TEST) > > > > And what about ARM et al. architectures? > > If you look in the various sub directories you'll see that the various > arch sub directories have similar for their SoC eg ARCH_SUNXI or > explicit depends on the SoC achieving the same outcome. ARM world is too fragmented. I can't take it as a good example. Most of distros would like to maintain less kernels (ideally one per architecture). In the above example it's a sub-arch. Yes, I know that x86 has 3 let's say "sub-arches" which require different settings to kernel. (None of them makes difference to pin control case though) > > Instead I would propose to reorganize parent Kconfig to have > > something > > like > > Well they're done in alphabetical and there's appropriate depends > ARCH_ or SOC_ etc so that those architectures don't randomly pop up in > configs for other unrelated things, the intel/ one is one of the only > ones that doesn't do this (hence this patch) > > > if (ARM || COMPILE_TEST) > > ...ARM stuff... > > endif > > > > if (X86 || COMPILE_TEST) > > ...X86 stuff... > > endif > > > > But personally I don't like any of the above. So, what's the issue > > this > > patch is targeting against? > > So that every time (in my case a distro) they don't have to explicitly > have unrelated "# CONFIG_PINCTRL_CHERRYVIEW is not set" style bits > through all their configs because it's completely unrelated to the > platform. Okay, so, what's wrong with defining big blocks on per ARCH basis as I pointed above? ARM, ARM64, X86, etc. -- Andy Shevchenko Intel Finland Oy