[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAP245DVab2Zw8XPCvCc4kCrq7RCSRh0K8wN=AmLdLMVJQcTmSA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2019 15:17:18 +0530
From: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
arm-soc <arm@...nel.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-pci <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Cleanup arm64 driver dependencies
Hi Arnd,
On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 2:59 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 12:18 AM Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org> wrote:
> >
> > I was using initcall_debugging on a QCOM platform and ran across a bunch of
> > driver initcalls that are enabled even if their SoC support is disabled.
> >
> > Here are some fixups for a subset of them.
>
> The idea seems reasonable, disabling a platform may just turn off
> all the drivers that are not useful elsewhere, but there are mistakes
> in a lot of your changes, so I'm certainly not applying these for 5.4.
OK, thanks for confirming that you have no objections to such changes, per-se.
I'll spend some more time ensuring COMPILE_TEST coverage for these
cleanups. I only focused on quickly cleaning up my initcall_debug
output for now.
> Generally speaking, the way that works best is
>
> config SUBSYS_DRIVER_FOO
> tristate "SUBSYS support for FOO platform"
> depends on ARCH_FOO || COMPILE_TEST
> depends on SUBSYS
> default "m" if ARCH_FOO
>
> This means it's enabled as a loadable module by default (use
> default "y" instead where necessary) as long as the platform
> is enabled, but an x86 allmodconfig build also includes it
> because of COMPILE_TEST, while any configuration without
> ARCH_FOO that is not compile-testing cannot enable it.
How would you like to handle defconfigs which list a driver
explicitly? Should we add ARCH_FOO to those defconfigs or remove
DRIVER_FOO from them?
Regards,
Amit
Powered by blists - more mailing lists