From: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] AT91: add AT91SAM9X5 dummy configuration variable
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:23:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E118679.4090908@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201107021149.41703.arnd@arndb.de>
Le 02/07/2011 11:49, Arnd Bergmann :
> On Wednesday 29 June 2011 17:24:42 Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>> Here are a few questions:
>>> i) The drivers you're willing to send, are those for Atmel's IPs or are
>>> the IPs sourced from some other company ?
>>> ii) Even if they are Atmel-specific, do you see the possibility of Atmel
>>> licensing them ?
>>> iii) Does your driver current depend on asm/ or mach/ headers ?
>>> iv) Is there a generic header which you could use instead of asm/ mach/ ?
>>
>> I just want to hide drivers that are not relevant for others: I have the feeling
>> that it is a good practice. This tiny patch will ease this during my publication
>> flow. Do you seriously care?
>
> I think Felipe is right on this one, but both views are common in the kernel
> today: Some people want dependencies to mean "you cannot build this driver
> unless the dependencies are fulfilled", others like them more broadly to
> mean "there is no point to ever enable this driver because I know you won't
> need it".
>
> Both views are understandable, but I favor the first one because
>
> * it's the more common view these days and we should be consistent
>
> * it exposes drivers to more build testing. If something changes in
> the kernel that exposes new warnings in your driver or causes a
> build error, that is more likely to get fixed when more people
> find it by doing allyesconfig or randconfig builds.
>
> * If there is an actual build dependency between the driver and the
> platform that causes you to need the explicit Kconfig depends, that
> is in many cases a hint that the driver author is doing something
> wrong, like hardcoding MMIO addresses or referencing custom
> symbols exported by the platform.
>
> I don't think anyone really objects your patch to introduce the extra
> Kconfig symbol, but I'd hope that we can eventually get a consensus
> on the idea that you shouldn't use Kconfig dependencies based on
> whether a driver is relevant or not.
Arnd, Felipe,
You have convinced me.
But I will have to remove the other dependencies that I mentioned before
in the thread.
We can drop this patch.
Bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@atmel.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, balbi@ti.com
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, plagnioj@jcrosoft.com,
avictor.za@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] AT91: add AT91SAM9X5 dummy configuration variable
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:23:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4E118679.4090908@atmel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201107021149.41703.arnd@arndb.de>
Le 02/07/2011 11:49, Arnd Bergmann :
> On Wednesday 29 June 2011 17:24:42 Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>>> Here are a few questions:
>>> i) The drivers you're willing to send, are those for Atmel's IPs or are
>>> the IPs sourced from some other company ?
>>> ii) Even if they are Atmel-specific, do you see the possibility of Atmel
>>> licensing them ?
>>> iii) Does your driver current depend on asm/ or mach/ headers ?
>>> iv) Is there a generic header which you could use instead of asm/ mach/ ?
>>
>> I just want to hide drivers that are not relevant for others: I have the feeling
>> that it is a good practice. This tiny patch will ease this during my publication
>> flow. Do you seriously care?
>
> I think Felipe is right on this one, but both views are common in the kernel
> today: Some people want dependencies to mean "you cannot build this driver
> unless the dependencies are fulfilled", others like them more broadly to
> mean "there is no point to ever enable this driver because I know you won't
> need it".
>
> Both views are understandable, but I favor the first one because
>
> * it's the more common view these days and we should be consistent
>
> * it exposes drivers to more build testing. If something changes in
> the kernel that exposes new warnings in your driver or causes a
> build error, that is more likely to get fixed when more people
> find it by doing allyesconfig or randconfig builds.
>
> * If there is an actual build dependency between the driver and the
> platform that causes you to need the explicit Kconfig depends, that
> is in many cases a hint that the driver author is doing something
> wrong, like hardcoding MMIO addresses or referencing custom
> symbols exported by the platform.
>
> I don't think anyone really objects your patch to introduce the extra
> Kconfig symbol, but I'd hope that we can eventually get a consensus
> on the idea that you shouldn't use Kconfig dependencies based on
> whether a driver is relevant or not.
Arnd, Felipe,
You have convinced me.
But I will have to remove the other dependencies that I mentioned before
in the thread.
We can drop this patch.
Bye,
--
Nicolas Ferre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-04 9:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-28 11:35 [PATCH] AT91: add AT91SAM9X5 dummy configuration variable Nicolas Ferre
2011-06-28 11:35 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-06-28 10:35 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-06-28 10:35 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-06-28 12:13 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-06-28 12:13 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-06-28 12:26 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-06-28 12:26 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-06-28 16:02 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2011-06-28 16:02 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2011-06-29 9:30 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-06-29 9:30 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-06-29 15:24 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-06-29 15:24 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-06-29 15:39 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-06-29 15:39 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-07-02 9:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-02 9:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-04 9:23 ` Nicolas Ferre [this message]
2011-07-04 9:23 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-07-05 5:32 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2011-07-05 5:32 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2011-07-05 11:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-05 11:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-06-28 16:03 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2011-06-28 16:03 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4E118679.4090908@atmel.com \
--to=nicolas.ferre@atmel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.