From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755040Ab3KFQPb (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:15:31 -0500 Received: from mail-ob0-f181.google.com ([209.85.214.181]:63495 "EHLO mail-ob0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751768Ab3KFQPG (ORCPT ); Wed, 6 Nov 2013 11:15:06 -0500 Message-ID: <527A6B08.5020302@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2013 10:15:04 -0600 From: Rob Herring User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Borislav Petkov CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Doug Thompson , Robert Richter , linux-edac@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] edac, highbank: remove dependency on ARCH_HIGHBANK References: <1383708352-19527-1-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> <20131106142025.GB16072@x1.alien8.de> In-Reply-To: <20131106142025.GB16072@x1.alien8.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/06/2013 08:20 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:25:52PM -0600, Rob Herring wrote: >> From: Rob Herring >> >> In order to enable on arm64 and improve the build coverage, remove the >> dependency on ARCH_HIGHBANK. >> >> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring >> Cc: Doug Thompson >> Cc: Robert Richter >> Cc: linux-edac@vger.kernel.org >> --- >> drivers/edac/Kconfig | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/edac/Kconfig b/drivers/edac/Kconfig >> index 878f090..fc8aaaf 100644 >> --- a/drivers/edac/Kconfig >> +++ b/drivers/edac/Kconfig >> @@ -328,14 +328,14 @@ config EDAC_TILE >> >> config EDAC_HIGHBANK_MC >> tristate "Highbank Memory Controller" >> - depends on EDAC_MM_EDAC && ARCH_HIGHBANK >> + depends on EDAC_MM_EDAC > > Please, no, this'll get enabled on other arches where this driver is > simply N/A. It should only depend on the ARM arches it supports. Other maintainers disagree because it reduces build coverage. Having done some cross arch clean-up, I have to agree with that position. Iterating builds over different arches is bad enough, but iterating over all configs for each arch is a pain. It would be nice to have a uniform policy here. Rob