From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] net/fec: add dual fec support for mx28 Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:06:20 +0100 Message-ID: <20110117090620.GN6917@pengutronix.de> References: <1294297998-26930-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@freescale.com> <1294297998-26930-6-git-send-email-shawn.guo@freescale.com> <20110113144805.GS24920@pengutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: gerg@snapgear.com, Greg Ungerer , B32542@freescale.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, jamie@shareable.org, baruch@tkos.co.il, w.sang@pengutronix.de, r64343@freescale.com, eric@eukrea.com, bryan.wu@canonical.com, jamie@jamieiles.com, davem@davemloft.net, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, lw@karo-electronics.de To: Shawn Guo Return-path: Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:59497 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752238Ab1AQJGW (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Jan 2011 04:06:22 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110113144805.GS24920@pengutronix.de> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 03:48:05PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote: > > #if defined(CONFIG_M523x) || defined(CONFIG_M527x) || defined(CONF= IG_M528x) || \ > > - defined(CONFIG_M520x) || defined(CONFIG_M532x) || defined(CONF= IG_ARCH_MXC) > > + defined(CONFIG_M520x) || defined(CONFIG_M532x) || \ > > + defined(CONFIG_ARCH_MXC) || defined(CONFIG_SOC_IMX28) > I wonder what is excluded here. FEC depends on >=20 > M523x || M527x || M5272 || M528x || M520x || M532x || \ > MACH_MX27 || ARCH_MX35 || ARCH_MX25 || ARCH_MX5 || SOC_IMX28 >=20 > so the only difference is that the latter lists M5272 which seems a b= it > redundant in the presence of M527x. M527x =3D {M5271, M5275}, so it seems to me that only M5272 is excluded here. I don't know if it's possible to have a kernel supporting M5272 and (e.g.) M527x. If yes, does the driver work correct on M5272 then? Greg, it seems to me that M5272 is the exception here, not all the others. Would it make sense to make the above read: #if !defined(CONFIG_M5272) ? Best regards Uwe --=20 Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig = | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/= |