[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c045db7f-2147-1a58-8d65-8b52fddd932c@metux.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 19:51:40 +0200
From: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Marek Behun <marek.behun@....cz>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Linux Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-leds@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: linux-next: Tree for Apr 29 (drivers/leds/leds-turris-omnia)
On 29.04.19 18:53, Pavel Machek wrote:
>>> Theoretically. But we both now that probability of that is very low,
>>> and that likely driver would need other updates, too... right?
>>
>> What would be the benefit to add ARM dependency? So that distro
>> compilations don't ship the turris_omnia driver unnecesarily?
>
> That, and so that people are not asked "do you want to enable omnia
> LEDs?" when they update their kernel on i386.
Is that controller only built-in into some SoCs, or also available
as a separate chip ?
--mtx
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@...ux.net -- +49-151-27565287
Powered by blists - more mailing lists