[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171104095400.GD18680@linaro.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 15:24:00 +0530
From: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
To: Andreas Färber <afaerber@...e.de>
Cc: mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...eaurora.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
mchehab@...nel.org, rdunlap@...radead.org,
daniel.thompson@...aro.org, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
liuwei@...ions-semi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] clk: owl: add clock driver for Actions S900 SoC
On Sat, Nov 04, 2017 at 05:30:36PM +0800, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am 04.11.2017 um 17:19 schrieb Manivannan Sadhasivam:
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/Makefile b/drivers/clk/Makefile
> >>> index c99f363..821c1e1 100644
> >>> --- a/drivers/clk/Makefile
> >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/Makefile
> >>> @@ -75,6 +75,7 @@ endif
> >>> obj-y += mvebu/
> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_MXS) += mxs/
> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK_NXP) += nxp/
> >>> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS) += owl/
> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_MACH_PISTACHIO) += pistachio/
> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK_PXA) += pxa/
> >>> obj-$(CONFIG_COMMON_CLK_QCOM) += qcom/
> >>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/owl/Makefile b/drivers/clk/owl/Makefile
> >>> new file mode 100644
> >>> index 0000000..dbba0af
> >>> --- /dev/null
> >>> +++ b/drivers/clk/owl/Makefile
> >>> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> >>> +obj-y += clk.o clk-pll.o clk-factor.o
> >>> +obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS) += clk-s900.o
> >>
> >> $(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS) is superfluous here.
> >>
> > Okay. Since, we haven't added ARCH_ACTIONS to defconfig yet I intentionally
> > made this conditional compilation.
> >
> > Would like a suggestion from you on this!
>
> My point was that the ../Makefile already uses $(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS),
> so $(CONFIG_ARCH_ACTIONS) can never be n here.
>
Ah. Missed that :-)
> Instead you should probably either use $(CONFIG_ARM64) or better some
> new Kconfig option (CONFIG_CLK_OWL_S900?), so that we don't
> unnecessarily compile S900 on 32-bit arm and S500 on arm64.
>
CONFIG_CLK_OWL_S900 seems to be beter
> Another point: What about S700? Does it need to duplicate clk-s900.c or
> can we share any code between the two?
>
Haven't looked at that yet. Will let you know.
Thanks,
Mani
> Cheers,
> Andreas
>
> --
> SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
> GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
> HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists