Hello Fabio, On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 02:11:46PM -0200, Fabio Estevam wrote: > On 1/21/2011 1:33 PM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > 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. it's not optimal, but nothing happens unless this someone registers a corresponding device, too. > 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. I wouldn't bet ... Note I don't argue, if you still prefer the explicit list it's OK for me. Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- 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
