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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-04 9:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ 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 10:35 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-06-28 12:13 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-06-28 12:26 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-06-28 16:02 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2011-06-29 9:30 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-06-29 15:24 ` Nicolas Ferre
2011-06-29 15:39 ` Felipe Balbi
2011-07-02 9:49 ` Arnd Bergmann
2011-07-04 9:23 ` Nicolas Ferre [this message]
2011-07-05 5:32 ` Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
2011-07-05 11:25 ` Arnd Bergmann
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox