On Fri, Mar 08, 2013 at 06:44:54PM +0100, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote: > On 03/08/2013 06:30 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > From: Ludovic Desroches <[email protected]> > > > > SAMA5D3 devices also embed CAN feature. Moreover if we want to produce a > > single > > kernel image (at least for Atmel devices) it is not useful to be too > > restrictive. > > If it compiles on other ARMs aswell we can make it depend on ARCH_ARM. >
I was thinking about it but I am wondering if it makes sense. Should we have a non atmel device with atmel can? I have no position about this point, if you think it's better to make it depending onto ARCH_ARM, I'll change it if there is no compilation issue. Regards Ludovic > Marc > > > > Signed-off-by: Ludovic Desroches <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/net/can/Kconfig | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/can/Kconfig b/drivers/net/can/Kconfig > > index 9862b2e..27311c3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/net/can/Kconfig > > +++ b/drivers/net/can/Kconfig > > @@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ config CAN_LEDS > > > > config CAN_AT91 > > tristate "Atmel AT91 onchip CAN controller" > > - depends on ARCH_AT91SAM9263 || ARCH_AT91SAM9X5 > > + depends on ARCH_AT91 > > ---help--- > > This is a driver for the SoC CAN controller in Atmel's AT91SAM9263 > > and AT91SAM9X5 processors. > > > > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | Marc Kleine-Budde | > Industrial Linux Solutions | Phone: +49-231-2826-924 | > Vertretung West/Dortmund | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | http://www.pengutronix.de | > _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
