Messages in this thread | | | From | Leo Li <> | Subject | RE: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: defconfig: enable additional drivers needed by NXP QorIQ boards | Date | Tue, 18 Feb 2020 16:44:09 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org> > Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2020 11:38 PM > To: Leo Li <leoyang.li@nxp.com> > Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm64: defconfig: enable additional drivers needed > by NXP QorIQ boards > > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 06:55:59PM -0600, Li Yang wrote: > > This enables the following SoC device drivers for NXP/FSL QorIQ SoCs: > > CONFIG_QORIQ_CPUFREQ=y > > CONFIG_NET_SWITCHDEV=y > > CONFIG_MSCC_OCELOT_SWITCH=y > > CONFIG_CAN=m > > CONFIG_CAN_FLEXCAN=m > > CONFIG_FSL_MC_BUS=y > > CONFIG_MTD_NAND_FSL_IFC=y > > CONFIG_FSL_ENETC=y > > CONFIG_FSL_ENETC_VF=y > > CONFIG_SPI_FSL_LPSPI=y > > CONFIG_SPI_FSL_QUADSPI=y > > CONFIG_SPI_FSL_DSPI=y > > CONFIG_GPIO_MPC8XXX=y > > CONFIG_ARM_SBSA_WATCHDOG=y > > CONFIG_DRM_MALI_DISPLAY=m > > CONFIG_FSL_MC_DPIO=y > > CONFIG_CRYPTO_DEV_FSL_DPAA2_CAAM=m > > CONFIG_FSL_DPAA=y > > CONFIG_FSL_FMAN=y > > CONFIG_FSL_DPAA_ETH=y > > CONFIG_FSL_DPAA2_ETH=y > > > > And the drivers for on-board devices for the upstreamed QorIQ > > reference > > boards: > > CONFIG_MTD_CFI=y > > CONFIG_MTD_CFI_ADV_OPTIONS=y > > CONFIG_MTD_CFI_INTELEXT=y > > CONFIG_MTD_CFI_AMDSTD=y > > CONFIG_MTD_CFI_STAA=y > > CONFIG_MTD_PHYSMAP=y > > CONFIG_MTD_PHYSMAP_OF=y > > CONFIG_MTD_DATAFLASH=y > > CONFIG_MTD_SST25L=y > > CONFIG_EEPROM_AT24=m > > CONFIG_RTC_DRV_DS1307=y > > CONFIG_RTC_DRV_PCF85363=y > > CONFIG_RTC_DRV_PCF2127=y > > CONFIG_E1000=y > > CONFIG_AQUANTIA_PHY=y > > CONFIG_MICROSEMI_PHY=y > > CONFIG_VITESSE_PHY=y > > CONFIG_MDIO_BUS_MUX_MULTIPLEXER=y > > CONFIG_MUX_MMIO=y > > > > The following two options are implied by new options and removed from > > defconfig: > > CONFIG_CLK_QORIQ=y > > CONFIG_MEMORY=y > > > > Signed-off-by: Li Yang <leoyang.li@nxp.com> > > This is too much change in a single patch. It should be split properly to make > review and merge easier, considering arm-soc folks are cautious to those 'y' > options.
Ok. So probably separating them based on different subsystems will be good? It would be too many patches if I separate for each individual config option.
Regards, Leo
| |