From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932326Ab1GELnU (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2011 07:43:20 -0400 Received: from 2.mo1.mail-out.ovh.net ([178.32.119.250]:56943 "EHLO mo1.mail-out.ovh.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932242Ab1GELnT (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jul 2011 07:43:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 07:32:29 +0200 From: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD To: Nicolas Ferre Cc: Arnd Bergmann , balbi@ti.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avictor.za@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] AT91: add AT91SAM9X5 dummy configuration variable Message-ID: <20110705053229.GC27909@game.jcrosoft.org> References: <1309260927-11411-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> <20110628122650.GK2612@legolas.emea.dhcp.ti.com> <4E0B43BA.803@atmel.com> <201107021149.41703.arnd@arndb.de> <4E118679.4090908@atmel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E118679.4090908@atmel.com> X-PGP-Key: http://uboot.jcrosoft.org/plagnioj.asc X-PGP-key-fingerprint: 6309 2BBA 16C8 3A07 1772 CC24 DEFC FFA3 279C CE7C User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 11929753940047670124 X-Ovh-Remote: 213.251.161.87 (ns32433.ovh.net) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-Spam-Check: DONE|U 0.5/N X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11:23 Mon 04 Jul , Nicolas Ferre wrote: > Le 02/07/2011 11:49, Arnd Bergmann : > > On Wednesday 29 June 2011 17:24:42 Nicolas Ferre wrote: > >>> Here are a few questions: > >>> i) The drivers you're willing to send, are those for Atmel's IPs or are > >>> the IPs sourced from some other company ? > >>> ii) Even if they are Atmel-specific, do you see the possibility of Atmel > >>> licensing them ? > >>> iii) Does your driver current depend on asm/ or mach/ headers ? > >>> iv) Is there a generic header which you could use instead of asm/ mach/ ? > >> > >> I just want to hide drivers that are not relevant for others: I have the feeling > >> that it is a good practice. This tiny patch will ease this during my publication > >> flow. Do you seriously care? > > > > I think Felipe is right on this one, but both views are common in the kernel > > today: Some people want dependencies to mean "you cannot build this driver > > unless the dependencies are fulfilled", others like them more broadly to > > mean "there is no point to ever enable this driver because I know you won't > > need it". > > > > Both views are understandable, but I favor the first one because > > > > * it's the more common view these days and we should be consistent > > > > * it exposes drivers to more build testing. If something changes in > > the kernel that exposes new warnings in your driver or causes a > > build error, that is more likely to get fixed when more people > > find it by doing allyesconfig or randconfig builds. > > > > * If there is an actual build dependency between the driver and the > > platform that causes you to need the explicit Kconfig depends, that > > is in many cases a hint that the driver author is doing something > > wrong, like hardcoding MMIO addresses or referencing custom > > symbols exported by the platform. > > > > I don't think anyone really objects your patch to introduce the extra > > Kconfig symbol, but I'd hope that we can eventually get a consensus > > on the idea that you shouldn't use Kconfig dependencies based on > > whether a driver is relevant or not. > > Arnd, Felipe, > > You have convinced me. > But I will have to remove the other dependencies that I mentioned before > in the thread. > > We can drop this patch. I prefer to hide the platform specific driver other wise we will have a huge menu entry in Kconfig with unrelated drivers that can not be used at all on the selected mach This is really annoying Best Regards, J.