Hi Uwe, On 1/21/2011 1:33 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > Hallo, > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 03:02:59PM -0200, Fabio Estevam wrote: >> Currently MMC_MXC driver can be selected by all i.MX devices. >> >> Restrict its use only for the appropriate processors. >> >> Signed-off-by: Fabio Estevam <fabio.estevam@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig b/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig >> index d618e86..a3a9ec1 100644 >> --- a/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig >> +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/Kconfig >> @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ config MMC_MSM >> >> config MMC_MXC >> tristate "Freescale i.MX2/3 Multimedia Card Interface support" >> - depends on ARCH_MXC >> + depends on MACH_MX21 || MACH_MX27 || ARCH_MX31 > What about > > depends IMX_HAVE_PLATFORM_MXC_MMC I would prefer to let the architectures explicitly in Kconfig. If someone selects IMX_HAVE_PLATFORM_MXC_MMC by mistake on a MX51 board, it will be possible to select the MXC_MMC driver in the kernel for MX51, which is incorrect. Using the approach of explicitly marking the architectures that support MXC_MMC would avoid such problems as well. > > ? Then if i.MX29 has the same IP you don't need to touch this again. Not likely to happen. Thanks, Fabio Estevam -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
