2015-11-19 13:51 GMT+09:00 Krzysztof Kozlowski <k.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxxx>: > On 19.11.2015 13:18, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> However, I don't think we can disable compilation of particular 64-bit >> SoCs, so maybe there isn't much sense in splitting their clock drivers >> into separate symbols? > > To me it does not really matter. Indeed as you said one cannot disable > building of one particular Exynos SoCs. > > However we could still want not build some parts of such SoCs (like > clock, pinctrl etc). I don't see much benefit for such case except when > someone would like to drastically reduce the size of kernel image (for > whatever reasons he has.). Can we really build a kernel that support selected Exynos SoC without its clock driver? Actually I don't think we even allow deselecting clock drivers currently, because they are not visible in menuconfig. Unless there is a clear goal to separate ARCH level Kconfig symbol for particular ARM64-based Exynos SoCs, I don't think it makes any sense to keep the clock-related symbols separate. > > On the other hand having separate symbols causes duplication and > obfuscates a little the Kconfig/Makefile. I like keeping things simple > so one symbol for all ARM64 Exynos clocks sounds good. > > Sylwester preferred current approach. You and Pankaj seem to prefer one > symbol-way. Hmm, I read Sylwester's post as a reply to your original message and not Pankaj's. Sylwester, could you clarify? Best regards, Tomasz -- 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
 |