Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Enable support for PWM Regulators

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Lee,

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 24 Jun 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
>> >> > index f632af0..6666973 100644
>> >> > --- a/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
>> >> > +++ b/arch/arm/configs/multi_v7_defconfig
>> >> > @@ -365,6 +365,7 @@ CONFIG_REGULATOR_MAX8907=y
>> >> >  CONFIG_REGULATOR_MAX8973=y
>> >> >  CONFIG_REGULATOR_MAX77686=y
>> >> >  CONFIG_REGULATOR_PALMAS=y
>> >> > +CONFIG_REGULATOR_PWM=y
>> >>
>> >> The current policy is to build as much as possible as a module in
>> >> multi_v7_defconfig. Since this is a tristate Kconfig symbol, could you
>> >> please change it to =m ?
>> >
>> > I would prefer that it stays built-in.
>> >
>>
>> Ok, I've no strong opinion on this. I was just mentioning what arm-soc
>> maintainers prefer nowadays.
>>
>> May I ask what's the rationale for leaving this option built-in?
>
> My view is that multi_v7 is used for prototyping, testing and to
> ensure all of the vendors are playing nice together.  Hopefully
> vendors aren't actually releasing kernels built with this defconfig!

Agreed and same for the per SoC family defconfigs, vendors should ship
kernels with a customized defconfig.

> During testing/prototyping time; installing and messing around with
> modules is an over-head I can do without.
>

Right but my question wasn't whether multi_v7 should have the options
as built-in or as modules. That has already been decided by the
arm-soc maintainers who want to have as much as possible as modules.
In fact, there have been patches posted recently to change the current
multi_v7 options from built-in to modules.

Instead my question was what makes this driver special to not follow
the current convention.

I agree that there is a trade off between having options as built-in
or modules and I believe that is why most SoC specific defconfigs have
the opposite policy,  that is to enable everything as built-in so one
doesn't have to mess with modules as you said.

But again, I don't have a strong opinion on this. What I think though
is that this should be documented somewhere so the options are enabled
following a documented rule instead of just whatever fits in someone
workflow.

Best regards,
Javier
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/