2015-11-19 13:51 GMT+09:00 Krzysztof Kozlowski [off-list ref]:

On 19.11.2015 13:18, Tomasz Figa wrote:

quoted

However, I don't think we can disable compilation of particular 64-bit
SoCs, so maybe there isn't much sense in splitting their clock drivers
into separate symbols?

To me it does not really matter. Indeed as you said one cannot disable
building of one particular Exynos SoCs.

However we could still want not build some parts of such SoCs (like
clock, pinctrl etc). I don't see much benefit for such case except when
someone would like to drastically reduce the size of kernel image (for
whatever reasons he has.).

Can we really build a kernel that support selected Exynos SoC without
its clock driver? Actually I don't think we even allow deselecting
clock drivers currently, because they are not visible in menuconfig.
Unless there is a clear goal to separate ARCH level Kconfig symbol for
particular ARM64-based Exynos SoCs, I don't think it makes any sense
to keep the clock-related symbols separate.

On the other hand having separate symbols causes duplication and
obfuscates a little the Kconfig/Makefile. I like keeping things simple
so one symbol for all ARM64 Exynos clocks sounds good.

Sylwester preferred current approach. You and Pankaj seem to prefer one
symbol-way.

Hmm, I read Sylwester's post as a reply to your original message and
not Pankaj's. Sylwester, could you clarify?

Best regards,
Tomasz