linux-kernel - Re: [RESEND][PATCH 1/3] arm: dts: introduce config HAS

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <20130507182711.GB28628@obsidianresearch.com>
Date:	Tue, 7 May 2013 12:27:11 -0600
From:	Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
To:	Eduardo Valentin <eduardo.valentin@...com>
Cc:	Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koskinen@....fi>, tony@...mide.com,
	linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH 1/3] arm: dts: introduce config HAS_BANDGAP

On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:15:00AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> > But broadly the direction seems that drivers should have minimal
> > dependencies so, eg, the thermal maintainer compiling for x86 should
> > be able to compile test/static analyze your driver..

> Well, I do not see much of this attempt actually. Do you have some link
> / evidene that shows someone who actually cares about compiling drivers
> for targets that they are not used for? On this specific driver, I
> actually have  had exactly the opposite advice [1]. I am not convinced
> people actually want to do that.

There was a discussion a bit ago, but I can't find a link.. The
context was subsystem maintainers are being asked to look after more
code with the DT transition moving things out of arch/arm and at least
one complained they couldn't even compile test on x86... But again, I
can't find a link and you are right, there are lots and lots of
'depends ARCH..' style things in kConfig already.

Lets just call it something to think about.

> >> Thats the idea behind this config option. It follows the same design as
> >> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_CPUFREQ, for instance.
> > 
> > That is entirely contained inside arch/arm and doesn't involve
> > drivers.
> 
> It actually goes outside arch/arm.

Hm, must have missed that, seemed like all it did was control
including drivers/cpufreq/Kconfig within the ARM kconfigs.. And
unicore32 copied the name, but did the same thing.

Regards,
Jason
--
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/