Re: [PATCH] net: can: Enable xilinx driver for all ARCHs

[Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@pengutronix.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1811 bytes --]

On 03/09/2015 09:58 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
> On 03/09/2015 09:50 AM, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
>> On 03/09/2015 09:48 AM, Michal Simek wrote:
>>> Remove Kconfig dependency and enable driver for
>>> all ARCHs.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michal Simek <michal.simek@xilinx.com>
>>> Acked-by: Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@xilinx.com>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Test for all archs done by Kbuild test robot without any problem.
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/net/can/Kconfig | 1 -
>>>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/can/Kconfig b/drivers/net/can/Kconfig
>>> index 98d73aab52fe..f690c3fb3088 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/net/can/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/drivers/net/can/Kconfig
>>> @@ -131,7 +131,6 @@ config CAN_RCAR
>>>  
>>>  config CAN_XILINXCAN
>>>  	tristate "Xilinx CAN"
>>> -	depends on ARCH_ZYNQ || MICROBLAZE || COMPILE_TEST
>>
>> I think that's what COMPILE_TEST ist for?
> 
> For compilation yes but not for enabling. Currently this driver
> can be also used on ARM64 that's why people suggesting directly
> to remove dependency on arch and then COMPILE_TEST can be removed
> too.

In the past (May 2014) I had people complaining that certain ARM SoC
specific drivers are enabled on ARM in general, not just on that SoC. As
I'm not following arm64 in detail, has the notion of using depends on
ARCH changes since then?

> Or do you want me to change description to mention that this is for
> ARM64 enabling?

Given this is consensus, a remark to ARM64 would be appreciated. :)

Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]