[PATCH 1/2] ARM: Rename ARCH_SHMOBILE to ARCH_SHMOBILE_LEGACY

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Simon,

On Wednesday 13 November 2013 09:53:29 Simon Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 02:21:04PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 November 2013 14:26:25 Simon Horman wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 02:11:37PM +0900, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 01:33:48PM +0100, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> > > > > SH-Mobile platforms are transitioning from non-multiplatform to
> > > > > multiplatform kernel. A new ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI configuration symbol
> > > > > has been created to group all multiplatform-enabled SH-Mobile SoCs.
> > > > > The existing ARCH_SHMOBILE configuration symbol groups SoCs that
> > > > > haven't been converted yet.
> > > > > 
> > > > > This arrangement works fine for the arch/ code, but lots of drivers
> > > > > needed on both ARCH_SHMOBILE and ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI depend on
> > > > > ARCH_SHMOBILE only. In order to avoid changing them, rename
> > > > > ARCH_SHMOBILE to ARCH_SHMOBILE_LEGACY, and create a new boolean
> > > > > ARCH_SHMOBILE configuration symbol that is selected by both
> > > > > ARCH_SHMOBILE_LEGACY and ARCH_SHMOBILE_MULTI.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Laurent Pinchart
> > > > > <laurent.pinchart+renesas at ideasonboard.com>
> > > > > Acked-by: Magnus Damm <damm at opensource.se>
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks, I have queued this up.
> > > 
> > > I have dropped this for now as it seems that all of the
> > > shmobile defconfigs now need to be updated to use ARCH_SHMOBILE_LEGACY
> > > instead of ARCH_SHMOBILE.
> > 
> > Indeed, I forgot about that.
> > 
> > > It seems to me that needs to be part of this patch to avoid
> > > breaking bisecatability. Any thoughts?
> > 
> > The only bisection this would break is the defconfig bisection. I'm not
> > sure whether we need to care about that, Would that be a bit issue ? I'll
> > submit a separate patch, please feel free to squash it with this one if
> > you believe it should be.
> 
> To be honest I'm unsure.
> But I think that I am leaning towards keeping the patches separate.

You got both patches, it's your call ;-)

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart