From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Dooks Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: MMC: enable SDHCI-S3C on S5PC1XX platform Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:01:18 +0000 Message-ID: <20091117130116.GY23772@trinity.fluff.org> References: <1258444374-21479-1-git-send-email-m.szyprowski@samsung.com> <20091117121143.09246257@life-in-the-fast-lane> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091117121143.09246257@life-in-the-fast-lane> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Marc Zyngier Cc: Marek Szyprowski , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, ben-linux@fluff.org List-Id: linux-mmc@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 12:11:43PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:52:54 +0100 > Marek Szyprowski wrote: > > I think it was Ben that suggested once to introduce a HAVE_SDHCI_S3C > symbol, selected by interested parties (S3C, S5P, S5PC...). Yes, I did mention this and it is an option to either replace the patch now or to do at a later date to tidy things up. I'm not going to reject this patch now (or force a rewrite at this late stage) I'll try and look at acking the last set of SDHCI patches Thomas sent and see if akpm will pick them up for linux-mmc. > Given the way Samsung SoCs are assembled (from an IP point of view), it > would make sense for one SoC to describe its features in > "HAVE_FEATURE_FOO" terms rather than each subsystem depending an ever > growing list of SoC. Yes, I was feeling that this is something that we should probably discuss either on linux-arm-kernel or to a wide audience. It might not suit everyone's taste, etc. -- Ben Q: What's a light-year? A: One-third less calories than a regular year.