linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] AT91: add AT91SAM9X5 dummy configuration variable

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4E118679.4090908@atmel.com>
Date:	Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:23:05 +0200
From:	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, balbi@...com
CC:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	plagnioj@...osoft.com, avictor.za@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AT91: add AT91SAM9X5 dummy configuration variable

Le 02/07/2011 11:49, Arnd Bergmann :
> On Wednesday 29 June 2011 17:24:42 Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>> Here are a few questions:
>>> i) The drivers you're willing to send, are those for Atmel's IPs or are
>>>       the IPs sourced from some other company ?
>>> ii) Even if they are Atmel-specific, do you see the possibility of Atmel
>>>       licensing them ?
>>> iii) Does your driver current depend on asm/ or mach/ headers ?
>>> iv) Is there a generic header which you could use instead of asm/ mach/ ?
>>
>> I just want to hide drivers that are not relevant for others: I have the feeling
>> that it is a good practice. This tiny patch will ease this during my publication
>> flow. Do you seriously care?
> 
> I think Felipe is right on this one, but both views are common in the kernel
> today: Some people want dependencies to mean "you cannot build this driver
> unless the dependencies are fulfilled", others like them more broadly to
> mean "there is no point to ever enable this driver because I know you won't
> need it".
> 
> Both views are understandable, but I favor the first one because
> 
> * it's the more common view these days and we should be consistent
> 
> * it exposes drivers to more build testing. If something changes in
>   the kernel that exposes new warnings in your driver or causes a
>   build error, that is more likely to get fixed when more people
>   find it by doing allyesconfig or randconfig builds.
> 
> * If there is an actual build dependency between the driver and the
>   platform that causes you to need the explicit Kconfig depends, that
>   is in many cases a hint that the driver author is doing something
>   wrong, like hardcoding MMIO addresses or referencing custom
>   symbols exported by the platform.
> 
> I don't think anyone really objects your patch to introduce the extra
> Kconfig symbol, but I'd hope that we can eventually get a consensus
> on the idea that you shouldn't use Kconfig dependencies based on
> whether a driver is relevant or not.

Arnd, Felipe,

You have convinced me.
But I will have to remove the other dependencies that I mentioned before
in the thread.

We can drop this patch.

Bye,
-- 
Nicolas Ferre

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/