On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 06:24:26PM +0000, Shenwei Wang wrote: > > > @@ -87,6 +87,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_SOC_IMX7D) += mach-imx7d.o > > > > > > ifeq ($(CONFIG_SUSPEND),y) > > > AFLAGS_suspend-imx6.o :=-Wa,-march=armv7-a > > > +AFLAGS_suspend-imx7.o :=-Wa,-march=armv7-a > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_IMX_GPCV2) += suspend-imx7.o pm-imx7.o > > > > Shouldn't it be controlled by CONFIG_SOC_IMX7D instead? > > CONFIG_IMX_GPCV2 is more suitable here. As long as a SOC has the same GPCv2 > block, the codes should be reused.
Let's see what problem it will have. Saying GPCv2 block is used on imx8, we will have something like below. obj-$(CONFIG_IMX_GPCV2) += suspend-imx7.o pm-imx7.o suspend-imx8.o pm-imx8.o If people want to build a kernel with imx8 support only, suspend-imx7.o and pm-imx7.o will also be built in there, which is undesirable. The files are named with "-imx7". It's a clear sign that the build of the files should be controlled by something like related to "imx7". Ideally, it should be CONFIG_SOC_IMX7. Since imx7d is the only supported imx7 soc and there is no CONFIG_SOC_IMX7 available so far, it falls on CONFIG_SOC_IMX7D. > > > +extern struct imx_gpcv2_irq *gpcv2_irq_instance; > > > > Will this give a checkpatch warning? > > Yes. Any suggestion for that? Move it to a header file? Get rid of it. Shawn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
