Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752152AbbFYQaB (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:30:01 -0400 Received: from mail-yh0-f50.google.com ([209.85.213.50]:36498 "EHLO mail-yh0-f50.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751540AbbFYQ3x (ORCPT ); Thu, 25 Jun 2015 12:29:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [37.11.0.18] In-Reply-To: <20150625150255.GE23990@x1> References: <1435154348-28840-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1435154348-28840-8-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20150625084204.GW15013@x1> <20150625150255.GE23990@x1> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 18:29:52 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/9] ARM: multi_v7_defconfig: Enable support for PWM Regulators From: Javier Martinez Canillas To: Lee Jones Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Linux Kernel , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , kernel@stlinux.com, "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Viresh Kumar , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Ajit Pal Singh Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2728 Lines: 68 Hello Lee, On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jun 2015, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Lee Jones 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/