Re: [PATCH] pinctrl: intel: wrap Intel pin control drivers in an architecture check

[Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2017-07-04 at 12:54 +0300, Heikki Krogerus wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2017 at 07:49:47AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > The Intel pin control drivers are architecture specific so add an if
> > arch
> > to check for X86 or compile test to ensure continued test coverage.
> > 

Sorry, have not seen the original mail.

> > Cc: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig
> > b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig
> > index 396830a41127..0c7edc321415 100644
> > --- a/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/pinctrl/intel/Kconfig
> > @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> >  #
> >  # Intel pin control drivers
> >  #
> > +if (X86 || COMPILE_TEST)

And what about ARM et al. architectures?

Instead I would propose to reorganize parent Kconfig to have something
like

if (ARM || COMPILE_TEST)
...ARM stuff...
endif

if (X86 || COMPILE_TEST)
...X86 stuff...
endif

But personally I don't like any of the above. So, what's the issue this
patch is targeting against?

> >  
> >  config PINCTRL_BAYTRAIL
> >  	bool "Intel Baytrail GPIO pin control"
> > @@ -72,3 +73,5 @@ config PINCTRL_SUNRISEPOINT
> >  	  Sunrisepoint is the PCH of Intel Skylake. This pinctrl
> > driver
> >  	  provides an interface that allows configuring of PCH pins
> > and
> >  	  using them as GPIOs.
> > +
> > +endif
> 
> OK by me:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Heikki Krogerus <heikki.krogerus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Intel Finland Oy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-gpio" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html