Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752214AbbGNLtd (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:49:33 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-f66.google.com ([74.125.82.66]:35016 "EHLO mail-wg0-f66.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751769AbbGNLtb (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Jul 2015 07:49:31 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20150709195944.GA4470@vaishali-Ideapad-Z570> <1436473148.20619.116.camel@tiscali.nl> <1436518813.20619.134.camel@tiscali.nl> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 17:19:30 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] coresight: replicator: Use module_platform_driver From: Vaishali Thakkar To: Mathieu Poirier Cc: Paul Bolle , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" 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: 3017 Lines: 88 On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:01 PM, Mathieu Poirier wrote: > > On 10 July 2015 at 09:51, Vaishali Thakkar wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Mathieu Poirier > > wrote: > >> On 10 July 2015 at 05:47, Vaishali Thakkar wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Paul Bolle wrote: > >>>> On vr, 2015-07-10 at 08:53 +0530, Vaishali Thakkar wrote: > >>>>> I thought about this solution before sending this patch. But I was not > >>>>> sure about it. Thanks for the explanation. I will send v3 with this > >>>>> change. > >>>>> > >>>>> Can I add Suggested By: Paul Bolle > >>>> > >>>> That should be "Suggested-by:". The net effect would be that, if my > >>>> suggestion turns out to be unwise, fan mail will also hit my INBOX, > >>>> right? Anyhow, fine with me. > >>> > >>> Ok. Thanks. > >>> > >>>> By the way, there's more module specific stuff in > >>>> drivers/hwtracing/coresight/. And there's no tristate symbol to be found > >>>> in its Kconfig file. So I'd guess there are a few other cleanups > >>>> possible too, if someone cared enough to have a closer look at that. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yes. It seems that introducing something like builtin_amba_driver() > >>> can be useful for files which are using module_amba_driver now . But I'm > >>> not sure if Mathieu is ok with it or not? If it seems useful to him, then I > >>> can go for it. > >> > >> The ETB drivers could use a "module_amba_driver()"... > > > > Why? Is there any specific reason behind this? > > How about other drivers?? Will it be beneficial to introduce > > builtin_amba_driver() for the others? > > All the other drivers (aside from the replicator) have been moved to > "module_amba_driver()" to avoid boilerplate code. The only one that > was forgotten is the ETB. A fix for ETM3x is already part of the 4.2 > cycle. > I see. Ok. > > As for builtin_amba_driver(), that will be up to Russell to decide. > Other than not calling the second half of the module_driver() macro, I > don't see what else it could do. I think there was a good conversation between Paul Gortmaker and other developers when he first introduced the idea of adding such macro (builtin_platform_driver). His commit explains that idea in a good way too. But yes I believe that it is a matter of taste. And at the end of the day it is upon maintainers whether such change is good for their drivers or not. Anyways I will be happy to work on this thing if Russell or you decides to go for builtin_amba_driver. Thank You. > > > > Thank You. > > > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Paul Bolle > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Vaishali > > > > > > > > -- > > Vaishali -- Vaishali -- 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/