On 2017-06-06 15:19, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:32 PM, Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> FWIW, I would prefer the HAVE_MXS_DMA solution, this also makes it less >> likely that new SoC forget to add MXS_DMA support since it will be >> inside arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig. > > I think that a cleaner solution would be to do like this: > > --- a/drivers/dma/Kconfig > +++ b/drivers/dma/Kconfig > @@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ config MV_XOR_V2 > > config MXS_DMA > bool "MXS DMA support" > - depends on SOC_IMX23 || SOC_IMX28 || SOC_IMX6Q || SOC_IMX6UL > + depends on ARCH_MXS || ARCH_MXC > select STMP_DEVICE > select DMA_ENGINE > help > > What do you think? Not sure, is really every ARCH_MXS/MXC supporting DMA? But then, is it a problem if we allow to enable a driver although not available in a certain SoC? -- Stefan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
