> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 04:01:57PM +0000, Chris Ball wrote:
>> > > Is there something we could depend on that would stop this driver being
>> > > presented to everyone, without being far too specific? At the moment
>> > > we'd be making x86 desktop users say whether they have this IP, which
>> > > isn't good. Are the architectures that use this IP already upstream?
>> > > Are they all ARM architectures, for instance?
>> >
>> > I don't know of any architectures upstream that use this IP block. There is an
>> > SoC from NXP that uses this it but it is not upstream:
>> >
>> >
http://ics.nxp.com/support/software/lpc313x.bsp.linux/
>> >
>> > The architecture we tested and debugged this driver on is not upstream either
>> > unfortunately. :-/
>>
>> Okay. I think "depends on ARM" is appropriate for now, and we could
>> expand that later if the block appears in a MIPS SoC or something.
>> Does that work for you?
>
> Oh, hey, rmk says that he seems to recall that akpm says that if the
> driver builds on x86 (it does), we should just allow it to be built
> there too so that it gets build coverage. Andrew, does this still
> represent your stance?
>
> I've heard the distro maintainers complain about having to investigate
> Kconfig entries for drivers that their users would never possibly use,
> though, and this certainly falls into that case. Is there something
> better we can do here, to correctly hide this driver from non-ARM users
> but also make it clear that it can be built if somebody wants to do a
> mass driver build?
