From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A261C4321A for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 20:38:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF9B32086D for ; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 20:38:05 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="MYQYl81U" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727213AbfF1UiE (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:38:04 -0400 Received: from fllv0016.ext.ti.com ([198.47.19.142]:40438 "EHLO fllv0016.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727173AbfF1UiE (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2019 16:38:04 -0400 Received: from lelv0266.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.225]) by fllv0016.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x5SKbt9Q023305; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:37:55 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1561754275; bh=qmjPdpLPSWAbNfzvl0aaOl50HSO4HcYPbHirzrfr7ZI=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=MYQYl81UM5yoC89mnR/inx37O4v6oLP7Rm7cPKT9hnUsBYrwbOMIRnadob18bJY2v VSwPajYeoR5NXWElHRiTYQ0b5/FyR3W+218zbz/XlpZBfuduO4yEvO1PLoFRGTjFDi d52Cx2Ys61aX9LUA1z/BAJ0wZP6IyR6N09c8LQy4= Received: from DFLE105.ent.ti.com (dfle105.ent.ti.com [10.64.6.26]) by lelv0266.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x5SKbtRB020988 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:37:55 -0500 Received: from DFLE110.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.31) by DFLE105.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.26) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:37:55 -0500 Received: from lelv0326.itg.ti.com (10.180.67.84) by DFLE110.ent.ti.com (10.64.6.31) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:37:55 -0500 Received: from localhost (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by lelv0326.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x5SKbtYP000389; Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:37:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 15:37:52 -0500 From: Nishanth Menon To: Keerthy CC: , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: Kconfig.platforms: Enable GPIO_DAVINCI for ARCH_K3 Message-ID: <20190628203752.rdb6vvc42qd5ofgd@kahuna> References: <20190627110920.15099-1-j-keerthy@ti.com> <20190627143208.eeca4xyygml7s4n3@kahuna> <39f5e726-8542-b650-3bdb-7542e8fab8ac@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <39f5e726-8542-b650-3bdb-7542e8fab8ac@ti.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 09:08-20190628, Keerthy wrote: [..] > > > + select GPIO_SYSFS > > > + select GPIO_DAVINCI > > > > > > Could you help explain the logic of doing this? commit message is > > basically the diff in English. To me, this does NOT make sense. > > > > I understand GPIO_DAVINCI is the driver compatible, but we cant do this for > > every single SoC driver that is NOT absolutely mandatory for basic > > functionality. > > In case of ARM64 could you help me find the right place to enable > such SoC specific configs? Is'nt that what defconfig is supposed to be all about? arch/arm64/configs/defconfig > > > > > Also keep in mind the impact to arm64/configs/defconfig -> every single > > SoC in the arm64 world will be now rebuild with GPIO_SYSFS.. why force > > that? > > This was the practice in arm32 soc specific configs like > omap2plus_defconfig. GPIO_SYSFS was he only way to validate. Now i totally > understand your concern about every single SoC rebuilding but now where do > we need to enable the bare minimal GPIO_DAVINCI config? Well, SYSFS, I cannot agree testing as the rationale in Kconfig.platform. And, looking at [1], I see majority being mandatory components for the SoC bootup. However, most of the "optional" drivers go into arm64 as defconfig (preferably as a module?) and if you find a rationale for recommending DEBUG_GPIO, you could propose that to the community as well. Now, Thinking about this, I'd even challenge the current list of configs as being "select". I'd rather do an "imply"[2] - yes, you need this for the default dtb to boot, however a carefully carved dtb could boot with lesser driver set to get a smaller (and less functional) kernel. > > v1 i received feedback from Tero to enable in Kconfig.platforms. Hence i > shifted to this approach. I noticed that you were posting a v2, for future reference, please use diffstat section to point to lore/patchworks link to point at v1 (I did notice you mentioned you had an update, thanks - link will help catch up on older discussions). This helps a later revision reviewer like me to get context. Tero, would you be able to help with a better rationale as to where the boundaries are to be in your mind, rather than risk every single peripheral driver getting into ARCH_K3? As of right now, I'd rather we do not explode the current list out of bounds. NAK unless we can find a better rationale. [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/arch/arm64/Kconfig.platforms [2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/kbuild/kconfig-language.txt -- Regards, Nishanth Menon