Re: [PATCH 1/3] clocksource: defbool CLKSRC_QCOM=y on ARCH_QCOM and make it visible

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 11/25/2015 01:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 November 2015 13:37:53 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > On 11/25/2015 11:17 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 25 November 2015 11:10:49 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > > On 11/25/2015 02:08 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > > We want to remove the ARCH_MSM* configs in mach-qcom/Kconfig
> > > > > because they are mostly proxy configs for selecting the right
> > > > > clocksource driver. Therefore, make CLKSRC_QCOM default to the
> > > > > value of ARCH_QCOM, but also make it visible if ARCH_QCOM=y so
> > > > > that we can turn it off when we don't want it.
> > > >
> > > > I have been removing the ARCH dependencies in the Kconfig file.
> > > >
> > > > Why do you have to turn it off manually ?
> > >
> > > The background is that this is used only on some of the older
> > > MSM SoCs, while the newer ones use the arch timer.
> > >
> > > We decided to remove the SoC-specific top-level options from
> > > mach-msm as they are becoming rather meaningless these days
> > > and just a burden to maintain at the rate that new variants
> > > get released, so being able to turn off this driver helps make
> > > the kernel slightly smaller if you are building a kernel for
> > > only the more recent models.
> >
> > Ok, thanks for the clarification.
> >
> > I don't really like this approach even if it is correct because it
> > breaks the current approach I am trying to make consistent across the
> > drivers.
> >
> > I would like to have the COMPILE_TEST option available for all the
> > drivers and move this option under the menu config. This patch will
> > prevent to do this code factoring.
>
> How about moving the option to arch/arm/mach-qcom/Kconfig then?
>
> We could have a user-selectable "allow use of qcom clocksource"
> option there, which would then select the driver.

Yes, why not.

> > On the other side, this option is supposed to have a slightly smaller
> > kernel when it is not used. But when does it happen ? When
> > ARCH_MSM8X60=n and ARCH_MSM8960=n. With this patchset, I don't see the
> > ability to turn these SoCs off as the options are removed. So the
> > associated code is not removed, right ?
> >
> > So why allow to turn off the timer but disallow that for the entire SoC ?
>
> The timer is the only code that is controlled by those two options at
> the moment, all the other differences between SoCs are already handled
> by enabling the respective device drivers.

Ok, I see.

Thanks.

  -- Daniel


--
 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org â 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

--
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/