Re: [PATCH v6 5/6] can: ctucanfd: CTU CAN FD open-source IP core - platform/SoC support.

[Pavel Machek]

Hi!

> > > +++ b/drivers/net/can/ctucanfd/Kconfig
> > > @@ -21,4 +21,15 @@ config CAN_CTUCANFD_PCI
> > >  	  PCIe board with PiKRON.com designed transceiver riser shield is
> > > available at https://gitlab.fel.cvut.cz/canbus/pcie-ctu_can_fd .
> > >
> > > +config CAN_CTUCANFD_PLATFORM
> > > +	tristate "CTU CAN-FD IP core platform (FPGA, SoC) driver"
> > > +	depends on OF || COMPILE_TEST
> > > +	help
> >
> > This is likely wrong, as it can enable config of CAN_CTUCANFD=M,
> > CAN_CTUCANFD_PLATFORM=y, right?
> 
> My original code has not || COMPILE_TEST alternative.
> 
> But I have been asked to add it
> 
> On Sunday 16 of August 2020 01:28:13 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > Can this be
> >         depends on OF || COMPILE_TEST
> > ?
> 
> I have send discussion later that I am not sure if it is right
> but followed suggestion. If there is no other reply now,
> I would drop || COMPILE_TEST. I believe that then it is correct
> for regular use. I ma not sure about all consequences of COMPILE_TEST
> missing.

COMPILE_TEST is not a problem. But you need to make this depend on
main CONFIG_ option to disallow CAN_CTUCANFD=M,
CAN_CTUCANFD_PLATFORM=y combination.

> > > @@ -8,3 +8,6 @@ ctucanfd-y := ctu_can_fd.o ctu_can_fd_hw.o
> > >
> > >  obj-$(CONFIG_CAN_CTUCANFD_PCI) += ctucanfd_pci.o
> > >  ctucanfd_pci-y := ctu_can_fd_pci.o
> > > +
> > > +obj-$(CONFIG_CAN_CTUCANFD_PLATFORM) += ctucanfd_platform.o
> > > +ctucanfd_platform-y += ctu_can_fd_platform.o
> >
> > Can you simply add right object files directly?
> 
> This is more tough question. We have kept sources
> as ctu_can_fd.c, ctu_can_fd_hw.c etc. to produce
> final ctucanfd.ko which matches device tree entry etc.
> after name simplification now...
> So we move from underscores to ctucanfd on more places.
> So yes, we can rename ctu_can_fd.c to ctucanfd_drv.c + others
> keep final ctucanfd.ko and change to single file based objects
> ctucanfd_platform.c and ctucanfd_pci.c
> 
> If you think that it worth to be redone, I would do that.
> It would disrupt sources history, may it be blames, merging
> etc... but I would invest effort into it if asked for.

git can handle renames. Or you can use the new names for module
names...?

Best regards,
							Pavel

-- 
http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature