Hi Will, On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Will Deacon wrote: > Whilst I'm happy to take the second patch for 3.20 (getting those > dependencies building and keeping them building is a Good Thing), can we > hold off on the first patch until it's not broken? Having an unconditional > depends on BROKEN isn't really that useful. I reflected on this when preparing the patches. It seemed to me that the CONFIG_BROKEN approach was slightly preferable. If initial support for CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA is merged, there will be a base set of mainline Kconfig directives in mainline for others to use when working on support for future Tegra chips, such as the X1. It also moves mainline slightly closer to Tegra132 support than it would be without the patch. At this point in time in my life, I've come to appreciate the incremental "baby step" approach ;-) That written, the difference between the two approaches is rather minimal. So ultimately I'm fine with whatever you and Catalin want to do. regards, - Paul -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
