On 03/11/2013 10:24 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote: > 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 don't know if atmels sells the IP core separately, but ARM Linux is going towards a multi ARCH kernel anyways. So the can core should compile on non atmel and/or multi arch kernels. > 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. Please make it so. regards, Marc -- 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 |
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
