On 17/11/15 05:39, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 17.11.2015 13:31, pankaj.dubey wrote: >> On Monday 16 November 2015 07:06 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: >>> Currently the Exynos5433 (ARMv8 SoC) clock driver depends on ARCH_EXYNOS >>> so it is built also on ARMv7. This does not bring any kind of benefit. >>> There won't be a single kernel image for ARMv7 and ARMv8 SoCs (like >>> multi_v7 for ARMv7). >>> >>> Instead build clock drivers only for respective SoC's architecture. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> drivers/clk/samsung/Kconfig | 13 +++++++++++++ >>> drivers/clk/samsung/Makefile | 4 ++-- >>> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/samsung/Kconfig >>> index 84196ecdaa12..5f138fc4d84d 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/Kconfig >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/Kconfig >>> @@ -2,6 +2,7 @@ config COMMON_CLK_SAMSUNG >>> bool >>> select COMMON_CLK >>> >>> +# ARMv7 SoCs: >>> config S3C2410_COMMON_CLK >>> bool >>> select COMMON_CLK_SAMSUNG >>> @@ -24,3 +25,15 @@ config S3C2443_COMMON_CLK >>> bool >>> select COMMON_CLK_SAMSUNG >>> >>> +# ARMv8 SoCs: >>> +config EXYNOS5433_COMMON_CLK >>> + bool >>> + depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST >>> + default ARCH_EXYNOS >>> + select COMMON_CLK_SAMSUNG >>> + >>> +config EXYNOS7_COMMON_CLK >>> + bool >>> + depends on ARM64 || COMPILE_TEST >>> + default ARCH_EXYNOS >>> + select COMMON_CLK_SAMSUNG >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/Makefile b/drivers/clk/samsung/Makefile >>> index 5f6833ea355d..a31332a24ef4 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/clk/samsung/Makefile >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/Makefile >>> @@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5250) += clk-exynos5250.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5260) += clk-exynos5260.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5410) += clk-exynos5410.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5420) += clk-exynos5420.o >>> -obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS) += clk-exynos5433.o >>> +obj-$(CONFIG_EXYNOS5433_COMMON_CLK) += clk-exynos5433.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5440) += clk-exynos5440.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS) += clk-exynos-audss.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS) += clk-exynos-clkout.o >>> -obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_EXYNOS7) += clk-exynos7.o >>> +obj-$(CONFIG_EXYNOS7_COMMON_CLK) += clk-exynos7.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_S3C2410_COMMON_CLK)+= clk-s3c2410.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_S3C2410_COMMON_DCLK)+= clk-s3c2410-dclk.o >>> obj-$(CONFIG_S3C2412_COMMON_CLK)+= clk-s3c2412.o >>> >> >> So in this approach we need to add separate config for clock support of >> each ARM64 Exynos64 SoC. Is this fine? >> >> Can we club compilation of each ARM64 Exynos SoC clock file under >> EXYNOS7_COMMON_CLK? As for all ARM64 SoC there is single defconfig and >> binary. > > Yes, it can be one config symbol for all clocks of ARMv8 Exynos SoCs. > From my point of view both has some advantages and disadvantages (kernel > size, granularity, number of Kconfig symbols etc.) and I don't mind > choosing different than I selected before. > > Any opinion from Samsung clock maintainers? Which do you prefer? It would have been a bit unfortunate to not be able to exclude the unneeded clk drivers from build. From my side both patches look like a step in right direction. For the $subject patch: Acked-by: Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- Thanks Sylwester -- 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
 |