On Feb 12, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On 12 Feb 2014, at 16:25, Kumar Gala <galak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Feb 12, 2014, at 4:38 AM, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:39:27PM +0000, Olof Johansson wrote: >>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> This patch adds support for Samsung GH7 SoC in arm64/Kconfig. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> The overhead of building one more device tree isn't very large, and I >>>> don't see any other need to have a Kconfig entry per SoC at this time. >>>> It's of course up to Catalin, but you might just want to always >>>> compile all dts files instead. >>> >>> For arm64, I thought of getting rid of ARCH_* Kconfig entries entirely, >>> only that I haven't heard any strong opinion either way (in which case >>> I'll do it, with a risk of single Image getting bigger and bigger and >>> people needing smaller Image can trim their .config). >> >> One reason to keep around ARCH_* is for drivers shared between arm and arm64 that depend on it. > > We already converted some of them (those depending on ARCH_VEXPRESS) to > just depend on ARM64. Ideally, at some point I’d like to see them as > defaulting to modules but I don’t think we are there yet (we had some > discussions at the last KS, I’m not sure anyone started looking into > this). I’m torn about this, I think for something like VEXPRESS it makes sense, however I think its reasonable to still have an config symbol for a full SoC family or something of that nature. - k -- Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- 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