Re: [PATCH 1/3] usb: phy: Add RCAR Gen2 USB phy

From: Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>
To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] usb: phy: Add RCAR Gen2 USB phy
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 15:15:23 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131010151523.GD28375@radagast> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1381188423-1867-2-git-send-email-valentine.barshak@cogentembedded.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1101 bytes --]

Hi,

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 01:47:26AM +0400, Valentine wrote:
> >>>I would use either
> >>>
> >>>	depends on ARM
> >>>
> >>>or
> >>>
> >>>	depends on ARCH_R8A7790 || ARCH_R8A7791 || COMPILE_TEST
> >>>
> >>>(assuming the driver can compile on non-ARM platforms, otherwise the above
> >>>line could be changed to ARCH_R8A7790 || ARCH_R8A7791 || (ARM &&
> >>>COMPILE_TEST)).
> >>
> >>OK, I'll take a look.
> >>Do all the drivers have to support COMPILE_TEST?
> >
> >There's currently no rule, but if the driver can only be compiled for a
> >restricted set of platforms, I would say that supporting COMPILE_TEST would be
> >a good practice. It of course needs to be restricted to the platforms on which
> >the driver will actually compile :-)
> 
> OK thanks.
> I'll probably go with the safest option:
> ARCH_R8A7790 || ARCH_R8A7791 || (ARM && COMPILE_TEST)
> 
> It does compile on x86 though, and may compile on other platforms as well.

why not ? What's the reason for not building under x86 ? Drivers are
supposed to be just plain C, completely portable.

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]