On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 04:02:21PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote: > Richard Zhao <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 01:41:30PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote: > >> Felipe Balbi <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 06:31:40PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: > >> >> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 01:06:26PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > >> >> > Hi, > >> >> > > >> >> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:56:52PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote: > >> >> > > > Do you think it's a good idea to let user select binding driver > >> >> > > > directly > >> >> > > > and the binding driver config depends on chipidea config? > >> >> > > > >> >> > > I don't have a strong opinion on this, although I prefer it the way > >> >> > > it > >> >> > > is now, because, imo: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > * in case of =m (and that's the only sane way of compiling it > >> >> > > anyway), > >> >> > > these all are compiled as modules, which you simply don't > >> >> > > install if > >> >> > > you don't want them; > >> >> > > * all of them get compile-tested every time you change something > >> >> > > in > >> >> > > the driver, which is a good thing; > >> >> > > >> >> > only true for $(ARCH) builds. I would like to see these drivers being > >> >> > compile tested on linux-next on all arches. Thus the patches I just > >> >> > sent. > >> >> The idea is great. But > >> >> - how can I make sure it pass for all arch? There' 27 folder in arch/. > >> >> - it's hard to predict one driver depends on what. > >> >> - for embedded kernel, people like built-in drivers, and people will > >> >> have things they don't need at all. > >> > > >> > that's true to some extent, but until we know for sure that all of that > >> > is compiling fine and all dependencies are properly handled, I wouldn't > >> > like to see Kconfig or Makefile being abused. That has happened before > >> > and will happen again if we allow it. > >> > > >> > My suggestion to Alex is to remove all dependencies for at least a > >> > couple of merge windows and only add dependencies for stuff which > >> > actually matters; like only building the PCI glue layer when CONFIG_PCI > >> > is defined instead of when ARCH_X86 is defined and so on. > >> > >> That's what I mean to do as well. I wouldn't dream of making something > >> like this x86 specific. :) > > Alex, Have you made the decision that remove all dependencies and leave > > only ones that has to be there? If yes, I'll try the way, though I don't > > feel good about that. > > Yes, I like Felipe's suggestion. Currently (with Felipe's patches from > yesterday), there is only one dependency (PCI for ci13xxx_pci, which is > ok). So let's try to keep it that way. > > I'll push the patches to my tree on github [1] soon, which I propose to > use for all chipidea-related patches. > > [1] git://github.com/virtuoso/linux-ci.git
you should add it to MAINTAINERS file. T: git git://github.com/virtuoso/linux-ci.git -- balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
