[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8ad514ec-7126-30d7-1c3f-332b6e574764@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 16:46:19 +0200
From: Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Paul <seanpaul@...omium.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
borntraeger@...ibm.com, Farhan Ali <alifm@...ux.ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] drm: Make it compilable without CONFIG_HDMI and
CONFIG_I2C
On 13.04.2018 16:32, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Thomas Huth <thuth@...hat.com> wrote:
>> By enabling the DRM code for virtio-gpu on S390, you currently also get
>> all the code that is enabled by CONFIG_HDMI and CONFIG_I2C automatically.
>> This is quite ugly, since on S390, there is no HDMI and no I2C. Thus it
>> would be great if the DRM code could also be compiled without CONFIG_HDMI
>> and CONFIG_I2C. These two patches now refactor the DRM code a little bit
>> so that we can compile it also without CONFIG_HDMI and CONFIG_I2C.
>>
>> Thomas Huth (2):
>> drivers/gpu/drm: Move CONFIG_HDMI-dependent code to a separate file
>> drivers/gpu/drm: Make the DRM code compilable without CONFIG_I2C
>
> What's the benefit? Why does I2C/HDMI hurt you?
Why should I be forced to compile-in subsystems that do not make any
sense on this architecture? It's just completely weird to see CONFIG_I2C
enabled on s390x.
Thomas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists