[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230117092114.62ba2f66@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2023 09:21:14 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Kalle Valo <kvalo@...nel.org>
Cc: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
Yan-Hsuan Chuang <tony0620emma@...il.com>,
Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org, Chris Morgan <macroalpha82@...il.com>,
Nitin Gupta <nitin.gupta981@...il.com>,
Neo Jou <neojou@...il.com>, Pkshih <pkshih@...ltek.com>,
Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 00/19] rtw88: Add SDIO support
On Mon, 16 Jan 2023 18:01:05 +0200 Kalle Valo wrote:
> > - My understanding is that there's a discussion about the rtw88 Kconfig
> > symbols. We're adding four new ones within this series. It's not
> > clear to me what the conclusion is on this topic though.
>
> Yeah, there were no conclusions about that. Jakub, do you have any
> opinions? For example, do we keep per device Kconfig options (eg.
> CONFIG_RTW88_8822BS, RTW88_8822CS and so on) or should we have only one
> more bus level option (eg. CONFIG_RTW88_SDIO)? rtw88 now uses the former
> and IIRC so does mt76. ath10k/ath11k/ath12k again use the latter :)
No strong feelings. Larry (IIRC) provided a fair justification for
the RTW symbols. If the module binary grows noticeably then having
the kconfig does indeed make sense.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists