* Re: [PATCH 03/03] ARM: shmobile: Consolidate Legacy GPIOLIB Kconfig bits
2014-08-25 3:45 [PATCH 03/03] ARM: shmobile: Consolidate Legacy GPIOLIB Kconfig bits Magnus Damm
@ 2014-08-25 8:39 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-08-26 9:28 ` Magnus Damm
2014-08-27 0:10 ` Simon Horman
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2014-08-25 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
Hi Magnus,
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> wrote:
> Consolidate ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB under ARCH_SHMOBILE_LEGACY
> so it can be shared by the legacy ARM mach-shmobile code.
Given
- all legacy support for shmobile boards except ape6evm, koelsch, and lager
select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB,
- the ape6evm, koelsch, and lager defconfigs have CONFIG_GPIOLIB=y,
shouldn't we just upgrade from ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB
to ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 03/03] ARM: shmobile: Consolidate Legacy GPIOLIB Kconfig bits
2014-08-25 3:45 [PATCH 03/03] ARM: shmobile: Consolidate Legacy GPIOLIB Kconfig bits Magnus Damm
2014-08-25 8:39 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2014-08-26 9:28 ` Magnus Damm
2014-08-27 0:10 ` Simon Horman
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Magnus Damm @ 2014-08-26 9:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
Hi Geert,
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
<geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi Magnus,
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Consolidate ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB under ARCH_SHMOBILE_LEGACY
>> so it can be shared by the legacy ARM mach-shmobile code.
>
> Given
> - all legacy support for shmobile boards except ape6evm, koelsch, and lager
> select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB,
> - the ape6evm, koelsch, and lager defconfigs have CONFIG_GPIOLIB=y,
> shouldn't we just upgrade from ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB
> to ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB?
Sure, that is fine with me. I'm not sure if there is much point in
separating OPTIONAL and REQUIRE anymore.
Historically in case of legacy support code we let the SoC code
provide ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB and then allow each board to
override with ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB in case they require PFC or GPIO.
The idea was that boards that need to configure the pin controller
would select REQUIRE, but this was done ages before PINCTRL existed
and we relied on GPIO for pin mux configuration. Boards that only
relied on pin controller settings from the boot loader would rely on
OPTIONAL (by not selecting REQUIRE) which would allow the user to not
compile in GPIO support.
These days we use PINCTRL for pin mux configuration anyway, so with
that in mind perhaps there is not much point with these GPIO bits..
Cheers,
/ magnus
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 03/03] ARM: shmobile: Consolidate Legacy GPIOLIB Kconfig bits
2014-08-25 3:45 [PATCH 03/03] ARM: shmobile: Consolidate Legacy GPIOLIB Kconfig bits Magnus Damm
2014-08-25 8:39 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-08-26 9:28 ` Magnus Damm
@ 2014-08-27 0:10 ` Simon Horman
2 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Simon Horman @ 2014-08-27 0:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sh
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 06:28:31PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> Hi Geert,
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> > Hi Magnus,
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Consolidate ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB under ARCH_SHMOBILE_LEGACY
> >> so it can be shared by the legacy ARM mach-shmobile code.
> >
> > Given
> > - all legacy support for shmobile boards except ape6evm, koelsch, and lager
> > select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB,
> > - the ape6evm, koelsch, and lager defconfigs have CONFIG_GPIOLIB=y,
> > shouldn't we just upgrade from ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB
> > to ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB?
>
> Sure, that is fine with me. I'm not sure if there is much point in
> separating OPTIONAL and REQUIRE anymore.
>
> Historically in case of legacy support code we let the SoC code
> provide ARCH_WANT_OPTIONAL_GPIOLIB and then allow each board to
> override with ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB in case they require PFC or GPIO.
> The idea was that boards that need to configure the pin controller
> would select REQUIRE, but this was done ages before PINCTRL existed
> and we relied on GPIO for pin mux configuration. Boards that only
> relied on pin controller settings from the boot loader would rely on
> OPTIONAL (by not selecting REQUIRE) which would allow the user to not
> compile in GPIO support.
>
> These days we use PINCTRL for pin mux configuration anyway, so with
> that in mind perhaps there is not much point with these GPIO bits..
I am holding off on this patch until some consensus is reached
on it or an alternate patch is posted.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread