Tomasz Figa wrote: > > On 16.04.2014 10:08, Sachin Kamat wrote: > > Hi Tomasz, > > > > On 16 April 2014 13:27, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi Rahul, > >> > >> > >> On 16.04.2014 05:58, Rahul Sharma wrote: > >>> > >>> From: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> > >>> This patch add basic arch side support for exynos5260 SoC. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Signed-off-by: Rahul Sharma <rahul.sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> Reviewed-by: Tomasz Figa <t.figa@xxxxxxxxxxx> > >>> --- > >>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 5 +++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach- > exynos/Kconfig > >>> index fc8bf18..bf4ed87 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig > >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig > >>> @@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ config SOC_EXYNOS5250 > >>> help > >>> Enable EXYNOS5250 SoC support > >>> > >>> +config SOC_EXYNOS5260 > >>> + bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5260" > >>> + default y > >>> + depends on ARCH_EXYNOS5 > >>> + > >>> config SOC_EXYNOS5420 > >>> bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5420" > >>> default y > >>> > >> > >> Is this patch necessary now? After Sachin's consolidation series there > are > >> no per SoC entries anymore. > > > > Kukjin still wanted individual SoCs to be selectable. Please refer [1]. > > > > [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/devicetree/msg27040.html > > I don't think any valid reason was presented there. Features in code > should not be selected using #ifdef CONFIG_ anymore, so I don't really > see any reason to not proceed with this consolidation. Olof, Arnd? > Hi, Yeah, in this case, nothing happened with adding SOC_EXYNOS5260. So I don't have any idea why this is required. - 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
 |