RE: [PATCH v8 1/3] ARM: EXYNOS: initial board support for exynos5260 SoC

[Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>]

Rahul Sharma wrote:
> 
> Hi Kukjin,
> 
Hi,

> Need this macro to enable build for clock driver.
> 
I found it in your patch, "clk/exynos5260: add clock file for exynos5260".
For consistency, I'm fine on this, if Tomasz has no objection me to pick
this into samsung tree for the 5260 clock stuff
"drivers/clk/samsung/Makefile".

Thanks,
Kukjin

> Regards,
> Rahul Sharma.
> 
> 
> On 22 April 2014 15:36, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> wrote:
> > Tomasz Figa wrote:
> >>
> >> On 16.04.2014 10:08, Sachin Kamat wrote:
> >> > Hi Tomasz,
> >> >
> >> > On 16 April 2014 13:27, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Hi Rahul,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On 16.04.2014 05:58, Rahul Sharma wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> From: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> This patch add basic arch side support for exynos5260 SoC.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com>
> >> >>> Signed-off-by: Rahul Sharma <rahul.sharma@samsung.com>
> >> >>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@samsung.com>
> >> >>> ---
> >> >>>    arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig |    5 +++++
> >> >>>    1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-
> >> exynos/Kconfig
> >> >>> index fc8bf18..bf4ed87 100644
> >> >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
> >> >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
> >> >>> @@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ config SOC_EXYNOS5250
> >> >>>          help
> >> >>>            Enable EXYNOS5250 SoC support
> >> >>>
> >> >>> +config SOC_EXYNOS5260
> >> >>> +       bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5260"
> >> >>> +       default y
> >> >>> +       depends on ARCH_EXYNOS5
> >> >>> +
> >> >>>    config SOC_EXYNOS5420
> >> >>>          bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5420"
> >> >>>          default y
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Is this patch necessary now? After Sachin's consolidation series
> there
> >> are
> >> >> no per SoC entries anymore.
> >> >
> >> > Kukjin still wanted individual SoCs to be selectable. Please refer
> [1].
> >> >
> >> > [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg27040.html
> >>
> >> I don't think any valid reason was presented there. Features in code
> >> should not be selected using #ifdef CONFIG_ anymore, so I don't really
> >> see any reason to not proceed with this consolidation. Olof, Arnd?
> >>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Yeah, in this case, nothing happened with adding SOC_EXYNOS5260. So I
> don't have any idea why this is required.
> >
> > - Kukjin
> >