On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:55:14 +0800, Bryan Wu wrote: > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 5:33 AM, Jean Delvare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:22:40 -0700, Bryan Wu wrote: > > > From: Michael Hennerich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michael Hennerich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Signed-off-by: Bryan Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > --- > > > drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig | 6 +++--- > > > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > > > index 476b0bb..a1351ce 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/Kconfig > > > @@ -100,10 +100,10 @@ config I2C_AU1550 > > > > > > config I2C_BLACKFIN_TWI > > > tristate "Blackfin TWI I2C support" > > > - depends on BF534 || BF536 || BF537 || BF54x > > > + depends on BF534 || BF536 || BF537 || BF54x || BF522 || BF525 || > > BF527 > > > help > > > - This is the TWI I2C device driver for Blackfin 534/536/537/54x. > > > - This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module > > > + This is the TWI I2C device driver for Blackfin > > 522/525/527/534/536/537/54x. > > > + This driver can also be built as a module. If so, the module > > > will be called i2c-bfin-twi. > > > > Now that the i2c-bfin-twi driver no longer requires special defines in > > the arch/mach header files, wouldn't it be more simple to just make it > > depend on BLACKFIN? Otherwise we'll have to update the "depends on" > > statement over and over again with every new machine. > > > > Unfortunately, 2 important Blackfin processor family BF533 and BF561 > do not integrate on-chip i2c twi controller. > They can use this driver. I plan to define HAVE_BFIN_I2C_TWI in each
I guess you meant "they can NOT use this driver"? > Blackfin family, then Blackfin I2C TWI driver just "depends on > BLACKFIN && HAVE_BFIN_I2C_TWI". We don't change this configuration > again when new machine born. Well, there's nothing wrong with letting people build this driver even if the platform doesn't have any supported device. As long as it doesn't cause a build failure, it's alright. So you could simply use "depends on BLACKFIN" (which is technically correct) and just document which machines have the device (as you already did). But if you prefer to introduce HAVE_BFIN_I2C_TWI, that's fine with me, it's really as you prefer. Out of curiosity, isn't it possible to build a single kernel that would support more than just one Blackfin machine? I wonder if this is something people could be interested in - I have seen such requirements for other platforms already. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ i2c mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/i2c
