Olof, On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Seems like this should be selected by the SoC (ARCH_EXYNOS5) instead > of the board. Actually, I'm not sure we need the board Kconfig entry > long-term; all boards will be dt-only. Good point. Hopefully someone at Samsung can work on removing the board itself? If you'd like me to take this on then let me know and I can put it on my list. I'm happy to resubmit my patch under ARCH_EXYNOS5. I'll move the exynos4 one at the same time. I'm going to make the assumption that PINCTRL_EXYNOS and PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 can happily coexist. Certainly I've got both defined in my tree right now and nothing blows up. I haven't tested on 5440 but things ought to be handled by "compatible" checks, right? I'll also assume that eventually someone will move PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 into PINCTRL_EXYNOS. If PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 won't eventually move under PINCTRL_EXYNOS then it makes less sense to define PINCTRL_EXYNOS for all exynos parts. -Doug -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |