Kukjin Kim wrote: > > Sachin Kamat wrote: > > > > Instead of repeating the Kconfig entries for every SoC, move them under > > ARCH_EXYNOS4 and 5 and move the entries common to both 4 and 5 under > > ARCH_EXYNOS. Also, since the individual SoCs do not have any specific > > machine/platform code, keep them as boolean symbols instead of user > > selectable and select them from Exynos4 and 5 config symbols. Individual > > SoC symbols can be removed eventually once the driver Kconfig dependencies > > on these symbols are removed. > > > > Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Acked-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > This is a resend of the series rebased on top of latest linux-next and > > Tomasz Figa's PM consolidation series 1 and 2. > > --- > > arch/arm/Kconfig | 10 +++++ > > arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 89 > +++++++++++--------------------------- > > ---- > > 2 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 66 deletions(-) > > > Hmm...I'm still thinking whether we don't need to select some specific > Exynos SoCs. Because actually we're implement/develop some features based on > mainline kernel and sometimes the features are not valid on all of Exynos4 > or Exynos5. Even though they are not in mainline, for mass product it's true > that Samsung needs to do it. It's another thing we have a plan for them or > not. Mainline upstreaming plan. > > So in my opinion, basically consolidation something is usually good but it's > not always good so we need to provide a way to use one of both. > - Kukjin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
