[PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: Enable PRUSS as module

[PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: Enable PRUSS as module

[MD Danish Anwar]

Enables PRUSS as kernel module for TI SoCs.

Reviewed-by: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: MD Danish Anwar <danishanwar@ti.com>
---
Changes from v1 to v2:
*) Rebased on the latest linux-next

v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230419095051.3269777-1-danishanwar@ti.com/

 arch/arm64/configs/defconfig | 1 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)

diff --git a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
index bf13d5c46578..0aecdf43a5d1 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
+++ b/arch/arm64/configs/defconfig
@@ -1339,6 +1339,7 @@ CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_186_SOC=y
 CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_194_SOC=y
 CONFIG_ARCH_TEGRA_234_SOC=y
 CONFIG_TI_SCI_PM_DOMAINS=y
+CONFIG_TI_PRUSS=m
 CONFIG_ARM_IMX_BUS_DEVFREQ=y
 CONFIG_ARM_IMX8M_DDRC_DEVFREQ=m
 CONFIG_ARM_MEDIATEK_CCI_DEVFREQ=m
-- 
2.34.1

Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: Enable PRUSS as module

[Konrad Dybcio]

On 4.08.2023 08:18, MD Danish Anwar wrote:
> Enables PRUSS as kernel module for TI SoCs.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: MD Danish Anwar <danishanwar@ti.com>
> ---
As an outsider, I have no idea what this does, and the Kconfig help
message doesn't say much more either.

Could you please add a short summary about what sort of hardware
is driven by this driver?

Konrad

Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: Enable PRUSS as module

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Fri, Aug 4, 2023, at 11:11, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
> On 4.08.2023 08:18, MD Danish Anwar wrote:
>> Enables PRUSS as kernel module for TI SoCs.
>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@gmail.com>
>> Signed-off-by: MD Danish Anwar <danishanwar@ti.com>
>> ---
> As an outsider, I have no idea what this does, and the Kconfig help
> message doesn't say much more either.
>
> Could you please add a short summary about what sort of hardware
> is driven by this driver?

Any additional information would also help, but more importantly,
Danish please use a recipient list that has only the people on 'To:'
that would actually apply the patch (Nishanth and Vignesh) and
ask them to merge it, while having everyone else on Cc.

The problem with addressing a trivial patch to a dozen people
is that often everyone will think that someone else will take
care of it. If you address a patch to just one or two maintainers,
they are more likely to either apply it or tell you if you got
the wrong person instead of ignoring.

For defconfig patches adding platform specific lines, there are
two ways this can be handled:

a) the K3 maintainers pick it up into a branch and send a
   pull request to soc@kernel.org with all the defconfig
   changes, from where I pick that up. This usually works
   best.

b) you send it to soc@kernel.org yourself and I wait for
   an Ack from the K3 maintainers so I know they agree with
   the contents as well as being bypassed as maintainers on
   this occasion.

     Arnd

Re: [PATCH v2] arm64: defconfig: Enable PRUSS as module

[Anwar, Md Danish]

On 8/4/2023 2:50 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2023, at 11:11, Konrad Dybcio wrote:
>> On 4.08.2023 08:18, MD Danish Anwar wrote:
>>> Enables PRUSS as kernel module for TI SoCs.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Christian Gmeiner <christian.gmeiner@gmail.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: MD Danish Anwar <danishanwar@ti.com>
>>> ---
>> As an outsider, I have no idea what this does, and the Kconfig help
>> message doesn't say much more either.
>>
>> Could you please add a short summary about what sort of hardware
>> is driven by this driver?
> 
> Any additional information would also help, but more importantly,
> Danish please use a recipient list that has only the people on 'To:'
> that would actually apply the patch (Nishanth and Vignesh) and
> ask them to merge it, while having everyone else on Cc.
> 

Sure Arnd, I will only keep Nishant and Vignesh in to and move everyone 
else to Cc.

> The problem with addressing a trivial patch to a dozen people
> is that often everyone will think that someone else will take
> care of it. If you address a patch to just one or two maintainers,
> they are more likely to either apply it or tell you if you got
> the wrong person instead of ignoring.
> 
> For defconfig patches adding platform specific lines, there are
> two ways this can be handled:
> 
> a) the K3 maintainers pick it up into a branch and send a
>     pull request to soc@kernel.org with all the defconfig
>     changes, from where I pick that up. This usually works
>     best.
> 
> b) you send it to soc@kernel.org yourself and I wait for
>     an Ack from the K3 maintainers so I know they agree with
>     the contents as well as being bypassed as maintainers on
>     this occasion.
> 
>       Arnd

-- 
Thanks and Regards,
Md Danish Anwar