From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pebolle@tiscali.nl (Paul Bolle) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 12:34:36 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v9 07/12] coresight-etm: add CoreSight ETM/PTM driver In-Reply-To: <1415647928.21229.23.camel@x220> References: <1415038066-22423-1-git-send-email-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> <1415038066-22423-8-git-send-email-mathieu.poirier@linaro.org> <1415615671.4862.30.camel@x220> <1415647928.21229.23.camel@x220> Message-ID: <1421062476.22660.46.camel@x220> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 20:32 +0100, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Mon, 2014-11-10 at 08:40 -0700, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > On 10 November 2014 03:34, Paul Bolle wrote: > > > On Mon, 2014-11-03 at 11:07 -0700, mathieu.poirier at linaro.org wrote: > > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_CORESIGHT_SOURCE_ETM_DEFAULT_ENABLE > > > > > > There's no Kconfig symbol CORESIGHT_SOURCE_ETM_DEFAULT_ENABLE. Neither > > > is there a preprocessor definition of this macro. So why was this > > > added? > > > > Correct - the feature (as we really want it) is currently being worked > > on but not yet part of the code base. The default option probably > > should have been removed but it doesn't do much else when mandating > > one to add a boot option on the kernel cmd line. > > I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean here. Anyhow, using a Kconfig > symbol to set a default for something that can also be set through a > kernel parameter might be considered overdoing it. But that's not for me > to decide. > > Unless the patch that adds this Kconfig symbol takes a long time to land > in linux-next, I won't be bothering you again. Two months have passed. This code made it unchanged into v3.19-rc1. A Kconfig symbol CORESIGHT_SOURCE_ETM_DEFAULT_ENABLE is not yet part of linux-next. Should I submit a trivial patch to drop the useless check for CONFIG_CORESIGHT_SOURCE_ETM_DEFAULT_ENABLE? Paul Bolle