On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 08:47:59PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Simon, > > On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Simon Horman > <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Make use of ARCH_RENESAS in place of ARCH_SHMOBILE. > > > > This is part of an ongoing process to migrate from ARCH_SHMOBILE to > > ARCH_RENESAS the motivation for which being that RENESAS seems to be a more > > appropriate name than SHMOBILE for the majority of Renesas ARM based SoCs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > While this patch is correct from a technic point of view... > > > --- > > * Based on the next branch of Vinod's slave-dma tree > > --- > > drivers/dma/sh/Kconfig | 6 +++--- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/sh/Kconfig b/drivers/dma/sh/Kconfig > > index f32c430eb16c..6e0685f1a838 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dma/sh/Kconfig > > +++ b/drivers/dma/sh/Kconfig > > @@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ config RENESAS_DMA > > > > config SH_DMAE_BASE > > bool "Renesas SuperH DMA Engine support" > > - depends on SUPERH || ARCH_SHMOBILE || COMPILE_TEST > > + depends on SUPERH || ARCH_RENESAS || COMPILE_TEST > > ... I'm wondering if we should just drop ARCH_SHMOBILE here. > > The only driver for an ARM SoC using this (SH_DMAE_R8A73A4), is not fully > enabled in DT, and probably never will, so I think we can just drop that > driver, too. > > Of course all of that can be done later. Sure, given what you have described above dropping ARCH_SHMOBILE is fine by me. Sorry for not noticing that earlier.
