From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Enable support for PWM Regulators Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 13:31:46 +0100 Message-ID: <20150701123146.GK3210@x1> References: <1435154348-28840-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1435154348-28840-8-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20150625084204.GW15013@x1> <20150625150255.GE23990@x1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Javier Martinez Canillas Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Linux Kernel , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , kernel@stlinux.com, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Viresh Kumar , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ajit Pal Singh List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 25 Jun 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Lee Jones wro= te: > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Lee Jones = wrote: > >> > On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig b/arch/arm/c= onfigs/multi_v7_defconfig > >> >> > index f632af0..6666973 100644 > >> >> > --- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig > >> >> > +++ b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig > >> >> > @@ -365,6 +365,7 @@ CONFIG_REGULATOR_MAX8907=3Dy > >> >> > CONFIG_REGULATOR_MAX8973=3Dy > >> >> > CONFIG_REGULATOR_MAX77686=3Dy > >> >> > CONFIG_REGULATOR_PALMAS=3Dy > >> >> > +CONFIG_REGULATOR_PWM=3Dy > >> >> > >> >> The current policy is to build as much as possible as a module = in > >> >> multi_v7_defconfig. Since this is a tristate Kconfig symbol, co= uld you > >> >> please change it to =3Dm ? > >> > > >> > I would prefer that it stays built-in. > >> > > >> > >> Ok, I've no strong opinion on this. I was just mentioning what arm= -soc > >> maintainers prefer nowadays. > >> > >> May I ask what's the rationale for leaving this option built-in? > > > > My view is that multi_v7 is used for prototyping, testing and to > > ensure all of the vendors are playing nice together. Hopefully > > vendors aren't actually releasing kernels built with this defconfig= ! >=20 > Agreed and same for the per SoC family defconfigs, vendors should shi= p > kernels with a customized defconfig. Right. > > During testing/prototyping time; installing and messing around with > > modules is an over-head I can do without. >=20 > Right but my question wasn't whether multi_v7 should have the options > as built-in or as modules. That has already been decided by the > arm-soc maintainers who want to have as much as possible as modules. > In fact, there have been patches posted recently to change the curren= t > multi_v7 options from built-in to modules. Then I need to either stop using multi_v7 or write a pre-build script to turn it into something useful I guess. Thanks for the heads-up. > Instead my question was what makes this driver special to not follow > the current convention. There is nothing special about this particular driver to warrant that. > I agree that there is a trade off between having options as built-in > or modules and I believe that is why most SoC specific defconfigs hav= e > the opposite policy, that is to enable everything as built-in so one > doesn't have to mess with modules as you said. Precisely. > But again, I don't have a strong opinion on this. What I think though > is that this should be documented somewhere so the options are enable= d > following a documented rule instead of just whatever fits in someone > workflow. News of this new convention is new to me. As I said, this driver isn't in any way "special". I was merely enabling it to make it useful to everyone, rather than only people who are currently supporting module support in their builds. Which as a low-level guy, I currently have no requirement for -- it just adds time, complexity and more things to debug. --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog