[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5357BD14.1000608@monstr.eu>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:16:04 +0200
From: Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC: Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.de>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: cadence: Add architecture dependencies
On 04/23/2014 01:34 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 01:14:41PM +0200, Michal Simek wrote:
>> On 04/23/2014 12:48 PM, Jean Delvare wrote:
>
>>> Originally I wanted to hide the Cadence drivers from X86 kernel
>>> configuration. If there's still a way to achieve that, let's do it. If
>>> not, we can leave the hardware dependency for ARM_AT91_ETHER and drop
>>> the one for MACB (and subsequently NET_CADENCE.) That's still better
>>> than nothing.
>
>> Any reason to hide this driver for x86?
>
> Distro maintainers like Jean are complaining about build times for their
> kernels if they enable absolutely everything so if they're never likely
> to see any hardware using something they want to skip it.
Is there any reasonable solution for this?
1. One group is saying use COMPILE_TEST for every driver to have better
coverage.
2. Next group is saying I don't want to build everything for my arch.
Fixing Kconfig to say !x86 is probably not the right way to go.
Isn't it enough not to enable absolutely everything?
Thanks,
Michal
--
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng), OpenPGP -> KeyID: FE3D1F91
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Microblaze cpu - http://www.monstr.eu/fdt/
Maintainer of Linux kernel - Xilinx Zynq ARM architecture
Microblaze U-BOOT custodian and responsible for u-boot arm zynq platform
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (264 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists