From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Figa Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] ARM: EXYNOS: Consolidate Kconfig entries Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2014 15:10:39 +0100 Message-ID: <52F397DF.6050209@samsung.com> References: <1391687996-26011-1-git-send-email-sachin.kamat@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mailout2.w1.samsung.com ([210.118.77.12]:52263 "EHLO mailout2.w1.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752829AbaBFOKn (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Feb 2014 09:10:43 -0500 Received: from eucpsbgm2.samsung.com (unknown [203.254.199.245]) by mailout2.w1.samsung.com (Oracle Communications Messaging Server 7u4-24.01(7.0.4.24.0) 64bit (built Nov 17 2011)) with ESMTP id <0N0K00JL3VDQQL60@mailout2.w1.samsung.com> for linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 06 Feb 2014 14:10:38 +0000 (GMT) In-reply-to: <1391687996-26011-1-git-send-email-sachin.kamat@linaro.org> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Sachin Kamat , linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org Cc: kgene.kim@samsung.com, olof@lixom.net Hi Sachin, On 06.02.2014 12:59, 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 > --- > arch/arm/Kconfig | 12 ++++++ > arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 97 ++++++++++-------------------------------- > 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-) I fully agree that there is no real need of having per-SoC Kconfig entries, since the differences caused by them are quite insignificant. Moreover, this makes me wonder if there is even need to distinguish between ARCH_EXYNOS4 and ARCH_EXYNOS5... Anyway, I second this patch: Acked-by: Tomasz Figa Best regards, Tomasz