Hi Guenter, thanks for the review.
On 01/04/2019 06:10, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 8:24 PM Daniel Lezcano > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The module support for the thermal subsystem does have a little sense: > > Do you mean "makes little sense" ? yep :) >> - some subsystems relying on it are not modules, thus forcing the >> framework to be compiled in >> - it is compiled in for almost every configs, the remaining ones >> are a few platforms where I don't see why we can not switch the thermal >> to 'y'. The drivers can stay in tristate. >> - platforms need the thermal to be ready as soon as possible at boot time >> in order to mitigate >> >> Usually the subsystems framework are compiled-in and the plugs are as module. >> >> Remove the module option. The removal of the module related dead code will >> come after this patch gets in or is acked. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <[email protected]> > > Sounds like a good idea. > > Acked-by: Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> > > Many dependencies such as the following can probably be simplified or > removed after this patch has been accepted. > > depends on THERMAL=y > depends on THERMAL || THERMAL=n > depends on (HWMON && (THERMAL || !THERMAL_OF)) || !HWMON > depends on !(MLXSW_CORE=y && THERMAL=m) > depends on THERMAL || !THERMAL > depends on HWMON=y || HWMON=THERMAL > depends on THERMAL || !THERMAL_OF Absolutely. -- Daniel -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
