[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=XcK5R1sdNwoJkFPapwWQ9vqxvmQi_L3BqTSt8EKRTNHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2014 08:22:09 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl>
Cc: Bill Richardson <wfrichar@...omium.org>,
Simon Glass <sjg@...omium.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dia.com>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>,
Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>,
Dylan Reid <dgreid@...omium.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] mfd: cros_ec: Sync to the latest
cros_ec_commands.h from EC sources
Paul,
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 1:08 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> wrote:
> Doug,
>
> On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 08:11 -0700, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Paul Bolle <pebolle@...cali.nl> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 09:46 +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 30 Apr 2014, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> >> > From: Bill Richardson <wfrichar@...omium.org>
>> >> >
>> >> > This just updates include/linux/mfd/cros_ec_commands.h to match the
>> >> > latest EC version (which is the One True Source for such things). See
>> >> > <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/ec>
>>
>> I believe most of your questions are answered by checking out the git
>> tree referenced above. ...but see below for details. This header is
>> a common interface between the kernel and the EC.
>
> I didn't realize that this was a link to a tree.
>
>> > CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE doesn't match anything in linux-next. Is
>> > a Kconfig symbol CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE perhaps queued somewhere?
>>
>> This is a config option on the ChromeOS EC
>> <https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/ec>. Doing a
>> grep there:
>>
>> board/samus/board.h:#define CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>> common/charge_state_v2.c:#ifdef CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>> common/charge_state_v2.c:#ifdef CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>> common/charge_state_v2.c:#ifdef CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>> driver/battery/samus.c:#ifdef CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>> driver/battery/samus.c:#endif /* CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE */
>> include/config.h:#undef CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>> include/ec_commands.h: /* Range for CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE params */
>> test/test_config.h:#define CONFIG_CHARGER_PROFILE_OVERRIDE
>
> I see. So this is not a Kconfig macro but a general macro with a CONFIG_
> prefix. There are quite a bit of those in the tree already, but still,
> would another prefix also do?
Given that it's an entirely separate project and this is a valid
CONFIG option in that project, it seems a lot to ask them not to use
the CONFIG_ prefix. Also: the part you are objecting to is only a
comment, right?
We could certainly add extra wording in the comment to make it obvious
that this is a CONFIG option for the EC and not the kernel. Would
that be enough? ...or are you trying to use some scripts to
automatically process files to look for CONFIG options?
-Doug
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists