From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Simon Horman Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 06:03:05 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] iommu: shmobile: Enable the driver on all ARM platforms Message-Id: <20131031060305.GU1603@verge.net.au> List-Id: References: <1383132043-5190-1-git-send-email-laurent.pinchart+renesas@ideasonboard.com> <20131030112625.GZ16735@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <1652955.Gs3XDiEUHO@avalon> <20131030162854.GB2493@sirena.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20131030162854.GB2493@sirena.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 09:28:54AM -0700, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 12:40:12PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > > For similar reasons as x86, can we please think about using: > > > > depends on ARM > > > depends on ARCH_SHMOBILE || ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI || COMPILE_TEST > > > I'm fine with your proposed option. As I don't want to respin the series > > dozens of time let's first agree on the course of action, I will then repost > > the patches. Mark, you've pushed towards as few platform dependencies as > > possible, what's your opinion on this ? > > In general I think we should have whatever the real depedencies are or > COMPILE_TEST (to the extent that they will actually build cleanly on > other targets). That way only people who explicitly go looking to > compile test things for build coverage (eg, when doing global cleanups > or API updates) need to be bothered by the extra compile test options. > > I'd read the above as saying the code needs ARM to build at all and that > the hardware will only ever appear on SHMOBILE. I am curious to know the value of "depends ARM". Is it to aid the reading that you spelt out?