On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 08:51:52AM -0500, Ben Gamari wrote: > On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 05:10:39 +0200, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > > NAK. This is totally bogus. The board doesn't really depend on > > GPIO_TWL4030, the MMC driver does. > > > I've looked a little more deeply into this and I'm not entirely > convinced that what you claim is true. It seems that the only dependency > that the MMC module _might_ have on the TWL4030 is for the LDOs, which I > believe should be covered in the regulator driver, not GPIO. > > In light of this, I think the use of the TWL's GPIO lines for MMC it > might be a board specific design decision. In the case of the > Beagleboard, they are only TWL GPIO used by the MMC configuration is for > .gpio_cd but as far as I could see they could have chosen any GPIO for > this. Am I missing something? it's all true, still you making a board depend on a driver is inverting the dependencies. If you don't enable TWL4030_GPIO, all what will happen is that MMC won't work, but that's completely valid if I'm e.g. debugging UART of USB. The point is, being able to disable features I don't want on my kernel image, is completely valid, if there's a compile breakage, then fix the breakage but don't prevent the board from compiling. -- balbi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
