[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20121106.184058.636480855516538607.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 18:40:58 -0500 (EST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: thierry.reding@...onic-design.de
Cc: sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linus.walleij@...aro.org,
grant.likely@...retlab.ca, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SPARC and OF_GPIO
From: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...onic-design.de>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:53:15 +0100
> Are you aware of any reasons why this conflict would still be necessary?
No reason that I can see, I'll push something like the patch below
via the sparc tree.
> This is not only the case for OF_GPIO but likely also for OF_SPI,
> OF_I2C, OF_IRQ and OF_ADDRESS. Shouldn't those all work even on SPARC
> nowadays?
Those also would need to be tested on an individual basis, but
there are no fundamental problems that I am aware of.
diff --git a/arch/sparc/Kconfig b/arch/sparc/Kconfig
index b6b442b..f0a5391 100644
--- a/arch/sparc/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/sparc/Kconfig
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ config SPARC
default y
select OF
select OF_PROMTREE
+ select OF_GPIO
select HAVE_IDE
select HAVE_OPROFILE
select HAVE_ARCH_KGDB if !SMP || SPARC64
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig
index d055cee..f11d8e3 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/gpio/Kconfig
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ if GPIOLIB
config OF_GPIO
def_bool y
- depends on OF && !SPARC
+ depends on OF
config DEBUG_GPIO
bool "Debug GPIO calls"
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists