On Wednesday 19 of June 2013 02:51:56 Kukjin Kim wrote: > On 06/18/13 20:11, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On Tuesday 18 of June 2013 19:23:29 Kukjin Kim wrote: > >> Tomasz Figa wrote: > >>> Hi All, > >>> > >>> As I promised, I am doing some spring (or rather summer) cleaning > >>> of Exynos- and Samsung- related code. > >>> > >>> This first part consists mostly of removing dead code remaining > >>> after > >>> removal of ATAGS support for Exynos, but several patches cleans up > >>> other things found by the way. > >>> > >>> See particular patches for more detailed description. > >>> > >>> On Exynos4210-based Trats board: > >>> Tested-by: Tomasz Figa<t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> Build tested every patch with s3c6400_defconfig, s5pv210_defconfig > >>> and exynos_defconfig. > >>> > >>> Changes since v1: > >>> - Split patches removing SOC_EXYNOS4412 > >>> - Adjusted drivers to check for ARCH_EXYNOS in addition to > >>> PLAT_S5P > >>> - Fixed compilation issue on s5pc100 > >>> - Removed empty line from mach-exynos/Makefile > >>> - Removed SAMSUNG_GPIOLIB_4BIT selection from ARCH_EXYNOS > >>> - Sorted Kconfig and Makefile entries > >>> - Added additional cleanup from Arnd (split and slightly modified) > >> > >> Tomasz, good job. > > > > Thanks. > > > >> After looking at, almost same with your previous version but > >> modifying 16, 19, 21, 25(just Cc) and adding some patches 17, 18, 29 > >> and 35 to 38. Would be helpful to me if you could note about that > >> in this series ;-)> > > OK, my bad, haven't though about it, sorry. Will remember to do it > > next time such series update happens. > > > > By the way, patch 14 has been updated as well. > > Thanks ;) > > > Best regards, > > Tomasz > > > >> Anyway, looks good I will apply this series > > > > OK, thanks. > > > >> except removing > >> CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4412 patches. > > > > I don't really understand this decision, but if you really insist... > > Sorry about that, but exynos4412 is not same with exynos4212 except > number of cores and exynos4412 is not one kind... OK, so it seems like I got misinformed about the number of cores being the only difference. > > Still, I think current setup is wrong, because you need to specify > > both SoCs in drivers and both Kconfig entries must have "select" and > > "depends on" clauses duplicated, while there are places currently > > where only one has been specified by mistake. > > > > So if we can't get this duplication removed, I'd suggest introducing > > CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4X12 which would represent the whole SoC series and > > making existing two entries just simple bools selecting the new one. > > Could be a solution but let's wait until something will be implemented > in mainline for exynos4412 not exynos4212 :) OK. Looking forward to it. Btw. This leaves us with two things broken: - sdhci-s3c checks for defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4212), but does not check for defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4412), - exynos-thermal checks for defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4412), but does not check for defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4212). I think this must be fixed, because selecting only Exynos4212 in kernel config you end up without exynos-thermal, while selecting only Exynos4412 breaks sdhci-s3c. Best regards, Tomasz > Thanks, > - Kukjin > -- > 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 -- 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
 |