From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: rjui@broadcom.com (Ray Jui) Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 12:00:10 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v5 3/8] pinctrl: cygnus: add initial IOMUX driver support In-Reply-To: <1425926456.2317.13.camel@tiscali.nl> References: <1425515756-321-1-git-send-email-rjui@broadcom.com> <1425515756-321-4-git-send-email-rjui@broadcom.com> <1425542612.24292.180.camel@x220> <1425926456.2317.13.camel@tiscali.nl> Message-ID: <54FDEDBA.1070404@broadcom.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 3/9/2015 11:40 AM, Paul Bolle wrote: > Linus Walleij schreef op ma 09-03-2015 om 17:28 [+0100]: >> I think you're right. Or I fear you're right. >> >> But this problem is present in so many drivers that a generic >> fixup needs to be done with a script and across an entire subsystem >> at once, > > Why don't we start with checking for similar cases during review, like > I'm now doing for only a week or two? > >> and besides I'm not sure of these macros disturb so much. > > I think they're confusing at best. Ie, when reading the code and the > corresponding Kconfig file one has to wonder: should the Kconfig symbol > actually be tristate or should it stay bool but did someone forget to > delete the module-specific code? > >> They are documentation in a sense, albeit a kind of documentation >> we used before we had git to record the actual authors of the >> code. > > They're useful, mostly, for module utilities. Outside that scope they > add information that thousands of files (that can also only be built-in > but do not have these macros) do not have and, apparently, do not need. I think it depends on how you see it. Based on this logic, then one can also argue comments in the code will be pre-processed away and are not needed. They at least serve the same documentation purpose in a way. So far I haven't seen other people complaining that having these module based macros in the driver are confusing when the Kconfig has a bool. Ray > > Thanks, > > > Paul Bolle >