From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail5.windriver.com ([192.103.53.11]:52748 "EHLO mail5.wrs.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755809AbcASET7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jan 2016 23:19:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Jan 2016 23:19:44 -0500 From: Paul Gortmaker To: Bjorn Helgaas CC: , Bjorn Helgaas , Phil Edworthy , Simon Horman , Valentine Barshak , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] drivers/pci: use builtin_platform_driver in renesas Message-ID: <20160119041943.GB1696@windriver.com> References: <1450745949-23882-1-git-send-email-paul.gortmaker@windriver.com> <20160108203737.GJ5354@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <20160108203737.GJ5354@localhost> Sender: linux-pci-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: [Re: [PATCH 0/2] drivers/pci: use builtin_platform_driver in renesas] On 08/01/2016 (Fri 14:37) Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 07:59:07PM -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote: > > These two commits are extracted from what was a larger series[1] of > > demodularization in PCI host code that was bool Kconfig. > > > > With the other commits, there was some mixed opinions whether we > > should make it explicitly non-modular or move towards making it > > functionally working as a tristate in order to reduce the size of > > built-in code for multi-platform kernels. > > > > However with the renesas changes, there was no ".remove" and no > > "module_exit" code stripped out ; it is just a straight 1:1 mapping > > of the modular macros onto what they become in the non-modular case > > anyway -- meaning the runtime remains unchanged. > > Is there any reason these drivers can't be made modular? I'd rather > do that, if we can. Per the above comments, the renesas drivers were a no-op and and got Ack: from appropriate people hence why I forked them out of the earlier bigger series, in thinking they were OK'd and done as-is. That said, if "be modular, or die trying" is the desired approach for PCI code, I can do my best to work within that constraint. It just won't be the no-op 1:1 mapping that the original proposed changes were. P. -- > > Bjorn