linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ARM: exynos: Select PINCTRL

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOesGMi=K4iJKjSk3RoynhiCMPPT98v5jADnqZ__TwX_YLw65Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 8 May 2013 12:33:34 -0700
From:	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
To:	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Thomas Abraham <thomas.abraham@...aro.org>,
	Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
	Alim Akhtar <alim.akhtar@...sung.com>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org" 
	<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: exynos: Select PINCTRL_EXYNOS for exynos5

Hi,


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> wrote:
> Olof,
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net> wrote:
>> Seems like this should be selected by the SoC (ARCH_EXYNOS5) instead
>> of the board. Actually, I'm not sure we need the board Kconfig entry
>> long-term; all boards will be dt-only.
>
> Good point.  Hopefully someone at Samsung can work on removing the
> board itself?  If you'd like me to take this on then let me know and I
> can put it on my list.

Nothing stops you from doing that on your own. I tend to push back
onto the maintainers to get them engaged in their own housekeeping,
but anyone is free to :)

> I'm happy to resubmit my patch under ARCH_EXYNOS5.  I'll move the
> exynos4 one at the same time.

Great.

> I'm going to make the assumption that PINCTRL_EXYNOS and
> PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 can happily coexist.  Certainly I've got both
> defined in my tree right now and nothing blows up.  I haven't tested
> on 5440 but things ought to be handled by "compatible" checks, right?

Yes, if they can't coexist then that's a bug.

> I'll also assume that eventually someone will move PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440
> into PINCTRL_EXYNOS.  If PINCTRL_EXYNOS5440 won't eventually move
> under PINCTRL_EXYNOS then it makes less sense to define PINCTRL_EXYNOS
> for all exynos parts.

Yeah, it should -- this is just in transition since 5440 was first out
of the gate with pinctrl.



-Olof
--
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/