Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] ARM: mach-bcm: Enable I2C support for iProc

[Florian Fainelli]

On 09/12/14 18:24, Ray Jui wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/9/2014 6:20 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> On 09/12/14 18:18, Ray Jui wrote:
>>> Enable I2C driver support for Broadcom iProc family of SoCs by
>>> selecting I2C_BCM_IPROC
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Ray Jui <rjui@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Scott Branden <sbranden@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/arm/mach-bcm/Kconfig |    1 +
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-bcm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-bcm/Kconfig
>>> index aaeec78..86ee90b 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-bcm/Kconfig
>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-bcm/Kconfig
>>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@ config ARCH_BCM_IPROC
>>>       select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
>>>       select ARM_AMBA
>>>       select PINCTRL
>>> +    select I2C_BCM_IPROC
>>
>> One way to avoid having to modify mach-bcm/Kconfig would be to have your
>> i2c driver Kconfig do this:
>>
>> default ARCH_BCM_IPROC
>>
>> would that work?
>>
> Yes. So in which case it is better to select a driver from the
> architecture specific Kconfig?

I suppose if your driver/subsystem is critical for system boot, like
powering a regulator or something that has a critical purpose, a select
is probably more appropriate here. If this is just exposing non-critical
devices, I would go with a depends on/default at the driver Kconfig level.

This is just how I see things, others would definitively have a
different view.

> 
>>>       help
>>>         This enables support for systems based on Broadcom IPROC
>>> architected SoCs.
>>>         The IPROC complex contains one or more ARM CPUs along with
>>> common
>>>
>>

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/