From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: S3C[24|64]xx: move includes back under scope Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 14:19:23 +0100 Message-ID: <201401151419.24423.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1389707618-17011-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <6144980.CZru2D3yJB@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.9]:57345 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751683AbaAONTi (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Jan 2014 08:19:38 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Tushar Behera , Kukjin Kim , Heiko Stuebner , Mark Brown , Tomasz Figa , linux-samsung-soc , Ben Dooks , Sylwester Nawrocki On Wednesday 15 January 2014, Linus Walleij wrote: > When I look at it, the issue also exist in e.g. > drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c which can be compiled > (like for allyesconfig) when PLAT_SAMSUNG is set. > > And it is also set to y for ARCH_EXYNOS... which > doesn't have any custom GPIO header. So this would > involve something like creating an empty > for Exynos which doesn't > seem like the right thing to do. Ah, right. I looked at this before, but I misremembered about PLAT_SAMSUNG and thought it was fine because ARCH_EXYNOS no longer implied PLAT_SAMSUNG. That was wrong, instead ARCH_EXYNOS still sets PLAT_SAMSUNG but not PLAT_S5P as it used to. > So I'm sticking with the #ifdef patch for now as it > seems to be the lesser evil :-/ Yes, agreed. Arnd